New Kerry: Same as old one

[windansea]

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist, 1/22/2004

PEMBROKE, N.H.

JOHN KERRY is back in his own backyard. Everything is different, and everything is the same. Kerry returns to New England eyeing frontrunner status in the Democratic presidential primary race, compliments of a well-earned first-place finish in Iowa. The caucus victory gives him momentum and the high-profile media coverage that goes with it. Before the candidate arrived at a chili feed at Pembroke Academy, the local press interviewed James Carville, the big foot political analyst and behind-the-scenes Kerry guidance counselor.

Kerry's stump speech, filled with populist, anti-Bush sentiment, is now an amalgam of the message that once propelled ex-Vermont Governor and now ex-front-runner Howard Dean: "We need to turn this country around from the radical direction George W. Bush is taking it. . . . We don't have a broken government, we have a broken value system." Kerry pays homage to Harry Truman and health care; and the senator who voted for the Iraq War resolution now proclaims, "Never again will young Americans be held hostage to American dependence on oil in the Middle East." President Bush's war on terrorism and Iraq "is not making people safer," says Kerry, a soundbite that is not all that different from Dean's much-ridiculed remark that Saddam Hussein's capture did not make America safer.

snip

In anticipation of a long-considered presidential run, Kerry took deliberate steps over the years to shed the liberal New England label that is political poison in other parts of the country. In a speech at Yale University in 1992, he broke from standard liberal dogma by declaring affirmative action to be flawed. In 1995, he voted for a landmark welfare reform package at that the time was labeled "legislative child abuse" by Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In 1998, he gave another speech billed as a dramatic break with Democratic doctrine in which he proposed ending the teacher tenure system. His vote for the Iraq war resolution, which again put him at odds with Kennedy, is also viewed locally in terms of a desire to position himself as a centrist in a general election.

more..
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/22/new_kerry_same_as_old_one/

[dreissig]

1. Leading the Party to Defeat

John Kerry is warmed over business-as-usual. He doesn't get anybody excited in any positive way, but he did get the antiwar Left hopping mad.

As boring as Al Gore, Kerry will prove to be an easy punching bag for the right wing. Kerry will lead the Democrats to a landslide defeat.

[denverbill]

8. I can hear the debate now.

Kerry: President Bush led us into a dangerous, unilateral, neverending war in Iraq.

Bush: You voted for that.

Kerry: President Bush implemented the Patriot Act.

Bush: You voted for that too.

Kerry: President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act.

Bush: You voted for that as well.

Kerry: President Bush signed a law ending overtime pay for 8 million Americans.

Bush: You didn't even show up to vote on that one.


General public: Well, they are almost the same on all the major issues, plus, Bush is better looking and has the experience of being President, so, what the hell. Besides, Kerry looks French.

[poopyjr]

11. Bush is better looking?

LMAO



Kerry will tower over Bush.

[library_max]

16. I'm going to hazard a guess

that you've never actually seen a televised political debate, if you think they can just stand there and trade one-liners like that. As a matter of fact, each will have a few minutes to make his point about each issue. Once Kerry has made his point about how Bush lied us into the war and what a moral and political catastrophe it's been, do you really think Bush is going to make any points by answering, "Well, you voted for the IWR"?

[denverbill]

21. Well, you're going to hazard an incorrect guess then.

I've seen many debates, since the late 60's. The most memorable to me were the Carter/Reagan and the Bush/Gore debates. Why? Because Carter CRUSHED Reagan in the debates, but people liked Ronnie better than Carter because all he did was tell anecdotes and spout one liners. When Carter criticized his 'cut taxes and increase military spending' as impossible without either cutting spending or increasing taxes, Reagan just laughed and said 'There you go again', ambled off on some tangent, and won the debate by a fair margin in polls taken afterwards. Reagan never did anything to demonstrate his intelligence, grasp of policy, or anything else.

Campaigns aren't won by who has the best platform or who is the best debater. They are won by who can score points with the public.

Take my word for it. My post isn't a verbatim transcript, but it is what will happen. Kerry cannot criticize Bush for going to war, for implementing the Patriot Act, for the No Child Left Behind Act, or for the most recent spending bill, without making himself an EASY target.

[windansea]

23. I agree with you here

last night I argued with a Kerry supporter on whether or not he waffled on his yes vote for IWR....the poster gave me a link to his speech to prove he wasn't

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

I read the whole thing but to me it comes off like a gigantic hedge bet...like he knew he was going to vote yes but wanted to be able to go both ways on the issue...I'm not sure if an average voter is going to get it...such complicated nuancing.

[library_max]

41. You're making the assumption

that the Patriot Act and IWR votes will have the same effect on the general electorate as they do on many DUers. They won't. Bush can't bring raise those issues without opening himself up to much worse comebacks. It's like Jack the Ripper calling Dr. Kevorkian a murderer. And that's not some nuanced position that voters won't be smart enough to get.

[bigtree]

18. So you would give Bush cover for not fully funding the Education bill

You would give him cover for using the patriot act like a gestapo tool.

You would give Bush cover for recklessly rushing into war, far outside the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the international community.

And you would use a Democrat to give him this cover.

[denverbill]

22. Don't be ridiculous.

And don't overestimate the intelligence of the American people. Unless Kerry is able to clearly state and make the American people understand that he voted for the NCLB act, but that Bush underfunded it the following year, it'll be hard to score any points there.

Bush did NOT go outside the mandate of Congress. The IWR gave him free reign to do damned near anything he wanted to.

[windansea]

25. see post 23

to see link to Kerry's pre IWR yes vote speech

I don't get it...

[bigtree]

29. It's clear that Senators held different views of the bill in their vote

Some saw the bill as a ticket to war. Some sought to use the IWR to force Bush back to the U.N. and possibly forestall war. (I've heard the cynicism on this, but I believe that good people should be taken at their word. I accept that most voted their convictions on this.)

The president clearly disregarded the intent of the IWR which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070

Of course, others in the catbird seat who didn't have the responsibility for the crafting of the bill and the vote were able to cherry-pick their arguments and throw stones in their opposition.

[bigtree]

32. My analysis of the IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=157220#165967

The authority to commit forces did not originate in the legislation. Indeed, the president already had the same authority thriugh a loophole in the War Powers Act (which the bill referenced) that decades of presidents had used to commit forces without congressional approval.

He could deploy them for up to 60 days without approval. After they are in the field it is unlikely that Congress would then revoke that authority and withdraw them. So, the president, I believe, would have committed forces with or without the resolution which attempted to reign him in.

[creativelcro]

12. Absolutely right. I'm ready to bet 1K on this.

[waldenx]

2. I am surprised he voted for welfare reform

I mean, surprised that he actually showed up to cast a vote.

[windansea]

3. LOL n/t

[flpoljunkie]

4. You might want to read Meyerson on Kerry rediscovering populist roots...

Liberal writers like Meyerson are also rediscovering the candidate John Kerry after previously falling for Dr. Dean...

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/01/meyerson-h-01-22.html

The fact is, no Democratic candidate can avoid sounding populist themes in 2004. Populism is on the agenda because George W. Bush has put plutocracy on his -- and the nation's -- agenda. The very raison d'être of this administration is favoritism to the rich. Kerry, Edwards, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) all sense that Bush is on very shaky ground here. Recent New York Times and Washington Post polls show that the public views Bush as favoring corporations over the broader public.

Bush's State of the Union address made clear that the president means to play the national-security card and punch some culturally conservative hot buttons as his way of winning -- or should I say sucker punching? -- working-class voters who would otherwise be prey to the Democrats' populism. Unlike Edwards, Kerry may not be to the populist manner born, but he's getting it down pretty convincingly withal, not to mention brandishing national-security bona fides as compelling as Clark's -- and more compelling than Bush's.

Actually, Kerry's service in Vietnam, and his lifelong association with veterans' issues thereafter, works as a twofer for him: It not only gives him credibility on the issue of force; it also provides the one unambiguously populist chapter in his life. Kerry's war, largely spent on a Mekong Delta gunboat, was a grunt's war, though he himself was an officer. The guys who served with him, and the guys who have come forth to say that Kerry saved their lives, were working-class guys who saw Kerry, for all their differences, as a comrade. Those are credentials that Clark hasn't really brandished; he was already on a fast track up the military ladder when in Vietnam, while Kerry, like most of the grunts, was a civilian who was passing through.

The minimum requirements for a Democratic presidential candidate this year are the ability to take the economic fight to Bush and the ability to seem a plausible commander in chief. For much of 2003, John Kerry, on the defensive for his vote to authorize the Iraq War, seemed unable to strongly press his case. But he has clearly found his voice again. Bush and Karl Rove should not relish a fight with the Mekong Delta candidate.

Harold Meyerson is the Prospect's editor-at-large.

[windansea]

5. rediscovering

is that like evolving??

[sangh0]

7. No

"evolving" leads to something that didn't exist before. "rediscovering" involves something that was ALWAYS there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "Carville (DLC) guidance counselor"

After the IWR vote, why am I not surprised? His true colors as just another "politics as usual" DLC shill are beginnig to show. His chances of getting my vote are about the same as bush learning to speak English.

[TP1776]

9. Sen. Kerry & The Patriot Act

I have severe misgivings about Sen. John Kerry.

You see, I'm a veteran of Bosnia and Afghanistan. One of the most disheartening moments that I can recall as an American was when I learned that the Congress (including Senator Kerry) passed the Patriot Act.

Putting it bluntly: I was fighting a war, putting my life on the line for this country.

Meanwhile, leaders that hold themselves out as an alternative to the Bush plutocracy (such as Kerry) were selling out the Constitutional rights because they calculated it would allow them to keep their jobs.

This is especially egregious coming from Sen. Kerry, who is a lawyer and should understand the extent of the damage to our fundamental civil liberties and Constitutional rights that the Patriot Act has done.

Yes, I know, Mr. Kerry thought it would be political suicide not to vote for the Patriot Act. But there were, in fact, congressional leaders who declined to vote for the Patriot Act.

It is a philosophical question, and it goes to a person's core: When do you take the hard stance, because it is the right thing to do, even when it's not the best thing for you personally? Man has faced this hard question, in Nazi Germany, in the communist countries, and anywhere where liberty was under assault.

The decline of liberty is a slippery slope (who in Nazi Germany in the 1930s thought things would go as far as they did?), and, accordingly, there comes a point where true defenders of our liberty have a duty to put their foot down, to take a stand. In my view, the Patriot Act was such a moment.

I know that I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I still believe in that oath. I also know that voting for the Patriot Act was the very antithesis of support and defense of our great Constitution.

I know that I answered the call to go to Afghanistan. During that time, Sen. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.

I know that I resigned my commission in protest over the Iraq War. Sen. Kerry voted for the war resolution.

There is a time in every person's life when they're given the chance to stand up for what is right.

In my view, Sen. Kerry has failed that test, instead putting his political career and Presidential ambitions first.

Sen. Kerry has lived his life wanting to be President.

It is for this reason that I'd prefer to see General Clark as the nominee.

I cannot, and will not, support Sen. Kerry. I believe he is a decent man, and I respect his Vietnam service and service to the nation in the Senate.

However, I do not trust that he will put the welfare of the American people, and the Constitutional values that are under direct attack by the Administration, ahead of his own self-interest and political expediency.

The record speaks for itself.

[sandnsea]

14. 99 Senators voted for the Patriot Act

Wes Clark said last night that we need many parts of the Patriot Act. No reason to hold Kerry apart for this vote. Makes for great DU fodder, but it's been proven in Iowa that people are smarter than that.

[bigtree]

15. You like Gen. Clark

Notwithstanding his latest dig at the war and the IWR vote, Gen. Clark had one view of the war and the IWR vote before he was fully engaged in campaigning and now he has shifted away from that view.

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43


Talk about the self-interest and political expediency of his shifting views on this. The man did say these things. He did say: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question,"

He did say that he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean.

BTW, only one senator voted against the Patriot Act. Most of the offensive provisions are set to expire soon. That's why such conservative radicals such as the late Paul Wellstone voted for it.

Hey TP1776
WELCOME TO DU!
:hi:

[emulatorloo]

20. Stop Oversimplifying, Please

His overall record speaks volumes of his support for the welfare of the American people and IWR and Patriot Act are not the black and white issues that you make them out to be.

Please read Kerry's positions and critique them for real. Thanks!



Ending the Era of John Ashcroft Dec 01 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

snip
But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks.  They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism.  That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq Oct 09 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

snip
Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options.  But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible. 

[newyawker99]

24. Hi TP1776!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bigtree]

10. The Globe is always tough on John Kerry

They seem to be warming up to him though. In a lot of ways he reflects the paper's dilemma of hailing from a liberal state and attempting to establish a moderate voice.

[sandnsea]

13. Exact same message

Too bad nobody heard it before. I've heard it for months. But I'm glad the Globe is back to true form. Getting their Kerry Kicks in like they have for years.

[TLM]

17. I heard that message for months too...

only it was coming from Howard Dean while Kerry was hiding in the background and voting for Bush's agenda, and letting Dean take all the heat and bad press for being the one out in front attacking Bush.

[bigtree]

19. Dean has been in the catbird seat

Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones, Knowing all the while that he would not have to vote on any of these issues. If he had any dignity he would'nt be sticking it to those who were tasked with the responsibility of crafting and actually voting for these bills.

[emulatorloo]

26. or to put it another way

"Woulda Shoulda Coulda" and Monday Morning Quarterbacking is what I hear when I hear Gov. Dean and General Clark talk about IWR. Especially given their positions at the time.


Mandatory Disclaimer, Love Dean Love Clark Love Edwards Love DK would vote for any of them in a heartbeat.

[sandnsea]

27. Whatever

Keep riding the losing bash Kerry train. It didn't work in Iowa, people apparently hear the same things I have for months.

[windansea]

28. among activist Iowa Dems correct

but what about swing voters in a GE??

[sangh0]

30. "activist Iowa Dems"???

About 125,000 Dems voted in Iowa. Are you saying there were all, or mostly, Dem activists?

[windansea]

31. maybe active dem voters is a better term

something like 9.5% I think...my point referred to sandnsea's post that attacks against Kerry didn't work in Iowa (among Dems) but that does not mean they do not work in a GE

[bigtree]

33. Just remember

In the public debate, you can't get to "Bush lied" effectively without declaring that he lied to Congress. Foisting all of the blame on the IWR let's Bush off of the hook for disregarding the provisions in it that mandated there to be an imminent threat before committing forces. He also disregarded the mandate to go back and work with the U.N.

I'm certain that he would love to blame Congress for his unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. I won't.

[windansea]

34. good point n/t

[emulatorloo]

35. You are right -

here's to you, bigtree - :toast:

and Kerry is so PO'd about it; he will not let it drop in the campaign or any debate that GWB consents to.


On edit: add toast!

[sangh0]

36. 2 questions

1) The phrase "active Dem voter" sounds a lot like "Dem voter", since so far, the only way you can tell they are active is by the fact that they voted.

2) I know of no reason why the primary voters would be less tolerant of negative campaigning than GE voters. Primary voters are known for being somewhat more liberal than GE Dems, but I've never heard of differences relating to negative campaigning.

[windansea]

42. all dems do not go to caucus

or even primaries..therefore the ones that do are more "active"

The comparison I was making is between active dem voters in primaries and "swing voters" in a GE...the swing voters are less likely to understand the "nuances" in Kerry's yes votes on IWR, Patriot Act, NCLB etc etc

[sandnsea]

39. He gets EVERYBODY

People just don't get it. He got the union vote. He got the internet vote. He got the anti-war vote. He got the senior vote. He got the women's vote. He got the independent vote. He got the youth vote.

He is a good guy, he'll do the right thing, he's got the experience and knowledge, people trust him. He's the Real Deal.

[GalleryGod]

40. C'mon, Sandy ! Let's Head to South Carolina our work in done here

Dolts.:grouphug:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

37. an empty suit

who sold us out when dumbya wanted war and now takes us granted and expects us to vote for him

[sangh0]

38. Trust me

No one expects you to vote for anyone.

[cthrumatrix]

43. this is a tough issue (war vote and patriot act)....many were against

and then "it's like they didn't listen to the people"