A Kerry morality play

I just saw one of the new Bushco attack ads. The thing that struck me is that it attacked Kerry over his IWR vote, specifically saying that Kerry wished to delay going into Iraq until the UN got involved. Which is true, in it's way, since that is what the IWR called for, and yet here Kerry is getting criticized for voting for it.

Just another lesson on "damned if you do, damned if you don't" I'm sure that Kerry was already planning on a run for office when the IWR came up, after all he announced two months later in December '02. I am also certain that this factor played into his IWR vote, ie, he didn't wish to appear soft on terror, etc. etc. And yet he is still getting beaten over the head with it, and there is no way, since he voted FOR the IWR, to turn this issue around and use it as a club to beat on Bush.

So just a little moral for all of you future presidential candidates. Vote with your constituents and your heart. Be true to yourself, for if you try to vote for pragmatic reasons, "electability" reasons, it will still be used against you, and then you will be totally compromised and unable to retaliate. At least somebody like Kucinich could come out four square and battling on this issue, since he voted against the IWR to begin with, no compromise there. Kerry is reduced to trying to "out hawk" Bushco, and we know how well that is going to succeed:eyes:

Am I on that many ignore lists, or is the truth just too damning to be worth comment?

To others, well, they're still going to bed each night praying
to God to grant their wish that Kerry really is "Mr. Electability"
when they know deep in their hearts that that's just pure
unadulterated bullshit put forward by the Media.

Kerry's been on every side of a lot of issues, and we can expect
to hear about each and every one of them many times before
Tuesday, November 2nd finally rolls around.

http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/

Atlant

That Bushco will win again. Doesn't matter who is against him, Bush has four things that guarantee his re-selection. Vote scrubbing is going nation wide, BBV is going nation wide, the media is in his back pocket, which also contains the larger war chest. The only chance that a Democratic contender had is to come screaming in from the progressive end of the scale, energize those fifty million non-voters, oppose Bush loudly and longly on every single issue, and have the credintials to back it up.

Kerry has none of this going for him. Sure, he is electable in the traditional DLC sense. He is pretty mainstream, photogenic, he doesn't make waves, he steers towards the center(that mythical land of promise), and can operate on both sides of any one issue. However this is a huge turn off towards many people for various reasons. Some folks want something in the Dem ticket that they can vote FOR, as simply opposed to voting against Bush. Kerry doesn't provide that, he simply regurgitates the DLC mantra of being a kinder, gentler corporate whore, but provides nothing substansive for his consituents to vote FOR. As for those fabled folk in the middle, why will they vote for Bush lite when with the pull of a lever they can get the real thing? As for the progressives in the party, well once again we see them and their ideas being slowly pushed right on out of the party. After all, the corporate finaciers don't want the Democratic party railing on about issues such as universal health care that the corporate masters would have to lose profit over. Thus those progressives who aren't quitting the Democratic party out of sheer disgust are getting booted out so they don't raise an embarassing ruckus.

So with all of this going on, I think that Bushco is going to win. I'm making my preparations, are you?

> I'm making my preparations, are you?

My wife keeps showing me real estate ads and job postings in Canada.
I think she's trying to tell me something. :)

Atlant
(Who has enough points, last time I checked)

but your thesis seems quite sound. If kerry had just 1 vote like this or a maybe a few, he could possibly extricate himself. Many of his votes seem designed for political expediancy and short term positioning. He is quite skilled at positioning himself and what his votes "meant", but in the long campaign season ahead there likely will be difficulty keeping a discernable philosophy or logical thread to keep the whole thing together. See the latest Time magazine interview-
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040315/ninterview.html

TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.

TIME: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm.
KERRY: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships.

TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?
KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.

TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?
KERRY: I didn't say that.

TIME: I'm asking.
KERRY: I can't tell you.

TIME: Might the war have been avoided?
KERRY: Yes.

TIME: Through inspections?
KERRY: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible. I'm not going to tell you hypothetically when you've reached the point of exhaustion that you have to and your intelligence is good enough that it tells you you've reached that moment. But I can tell you this: I would have asked a lot of questions they didn't. I would have tried to do a lot of diplomacy they didn't.

TIME: You would have asked more questions about the quality of the intelligence?
KERRY: Yes. If I had known that Chalabi was somebody they were relying on, I would have had serious doubts. And the fact that we learn after the fact that that is one of their sources disturbs me enormously.

TIME: As a Senator, could you not have asked that question?
KERRY: We asked. They said, Well, we can't tell you who the sources are. They give you this gobbledygook. I went over to the Pentagon. I saw the photographs. They told us specifically what was happening in certain buildings. It wasn't.

TIME: You were misled?
KERRY: Certainly by somebody. The intelligence clearly was wrong, fundamentally flawed. Look, the British were able to do a two-month analysis of what happened to their intelligence. This Administration wants to put it off to 2005. It's a national-security issue to know what happened to our intelligence. We ought to know now.

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean was the cause legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make...

Too bad it depends on Kerry's losing to make it's point. I wonder if you'll say that Kerry's IWR vote was the right thing to do, and people should NOT vote their conscience, if he wins?

Kerry voted yes on the IWR, that is fact. Bushco's attack ad demonizes Kerry for voting to delay the Iraq war until the UN gets involved(the IWR), that is a fact. Hence, Kerry IS damned if he does, and as many people state here, including yourself, would have been damned if he didn't vote for the IWR. Thus his carefully put together piece of political pragmatism vis-a-vis the IWR and not looking soft on terrorism essentially got him zip.

Thus it would have been better if he had voted his constituents wishes(remember, messages to the Congressional offices regarding the IWR were running 280 to 1 against the IWR, with polls indicating an overwhelming sentiment that America should not go in unilaterally, preemptively, and not until the inspectors finished their work), and with his heart. Thus, he would have positioned himself starkly in contrast to Bush, could be beating him over the head with this madness, and come across looking like a fighter, thus energizing his campaign. Instead, he comes across looking like an incompetent waffler, ready to vote either way, depending upon where the wind blows. As soon as he states the negatives about the war, he gets reminded that he voted for it also. Thus he is reduced to to contradictory positions, the first being that Bushco fooled him:eyes: and the second being that of trying to out hawk Bush, thus we get the forty thousand troop promise. Kerry winds up spinning like a top, and is unable to get traction.

And no, I won't ever say that a vote for preemptive war is the right thing. Unlike politicians and their apologists, I have a conscience and sense of ethics that brooks no such opportunistic flip-flopping.

is the assumption that Kerry's IWR vote is going to hurt him.

First we heard how certain candidates IWR votes would hurt them in the primaries. Now, it's gonna hurt Kerry in the GE.

Kerry voted yes on the IWR, that is fact. Bushco's attack ad demonizes Kerry for voting to delay the Iraq war until the UN gets involved(the IWR), that is a fact.

Not a fact. It's fiction. Bush* will *TRY* to use Kerry's IWR vote against him, but NOBODY knows, including you, if it will work. To state that Kerry WILL BE demonized assumes that the Bush* assault will work as a FACT. It is not a fact. It is fiction.

You also assume that if Kerry had voted against IWR, the attacks would be less effective than the attacks Kerry will face for voting in favor of IWR. There's no way you can know that, but that didn't stop you from arguing that Kerry would be better off if he had voted against it.

Unlike politicians and their apologists, I have a conscience and sense of ethics that brooks no such opportunistic flip-flopping.

Your conscience and sense of ethics didn't seem to prevent you from presenting your opinion as "fact"

Especially in political campaigns. I've worked in broadcasting for many years when I was younger, both radio and TV. The advertising principles are the same. I've also worked many many political campaigns, starting when I was eleven. The marketing principles are quite similar.

The reason that I state these facts is that this attack ad of Bushco's has been out for a couple of weeks now. It has also made it to a small market station. It wouldn't have gotten this far if the ad wasn't effective. Most national ad rollouts are test run in several markets before a general rollout. If this ad wasn't effective, if the brush that Bushco is using to paint Kerry with wouldn't cover, I WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS AD! That is how things work, both in the broadcast and campaign realms. If you wish further confirmation of this FACT, go talk to your local TV station, your state Dem party rep, or go read Broadcast Marketing 101.

And no, I'm not stating whether or not Bushco's attack ads would have been more or less effective if Kerry had voted against the IWR. You have this nasty ass habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths that were never spoken nor implied. This is piss poor debating technique, and one would hope that you are above that, both mentally and morally, but that remains to be seen. What I did state is that by voting NO on the IWR, Kerry would have the high moral ground, could wade in battle with Bush on this issue with a clean conscience, could point out the he does his job, ie representing his constituents, and not have to worry about the flip-flop issue vis-a-vis his IWR vote. Right now these issues are hampering an effective campaign.

And no, I won't ever say that a vote for preemptive war is the right thing. Unlike politicians and their apologists, I have a conscience and sense of ethics that brooks no such opportunistic flip-flopping.

You're arguing that Kerry's vote for IWR being used against him is an argument that he should have voted against him, while arguing that if the opposite had happened, it wouldn't change your opinion. The electoral effect of his IWR vote didn't affect your opinion, but for some reason, you think it should affect the opinions of those you disagree with.

Take a deep breath, relax, and then respond. Otherwise your post comes out like the above example, complete jibberish.