Questions for those really disgusted with Kerry's campaign statements

[jpgray]

Do you disagree that playing to the center is necessary? Do you agree with the strategy of playing to the center, but disagree with his way of carrying it out? Do you think playing up the security angle and the 'I'm just as tough as Bush on the terror war' is too repugnant, regardless of whether it is effective or not? Do you think his strategy of guarded statements and general caution is too timid when Bush has done so much harm?

I guess I'm trying to get a handle on the main difficulty people are having with Kerry's campaign. For example, I disagree with nearly every major statement he puts out on foreign policy. His plan for Iraq doesn't make much sense, and I think he has made wrongheaded statements regarding Israel and Venezuela. Given that, I can still understand these statements in the context of campaign strategy, and hope that to some extent this centrist platform is disingenuous and he will govern to the left of it. I think we're all agreed that we're better off with Kerry replacing Bush, but what do you think about this campaign in general, and why do you think it? Answering those questions above will help me better understand your motivations. All the questions above include opinions I can understand and find reasonable--if your stance doesn't fit in to them, please state it. I get the sense that some feel that the ends don't justify these campaign means.

[Guy Fawkes]

1. I am disgusted with his playing to the center on

gay rights issues. Of all the things to go center about! We need a candidate who will stand up for human rights, speak out against the neo-cons, and speak what he believes. And I hope Kerry is more liberal on civil rights then he lets on.

[jpgray]

3. He did vote 'no' on DOMA, which was rarer than a 'no' vote on IWR

And his statement on it was great, calling DOMA the use of our legislature to spew bigotry. So that bodes well, but I can't predict if his stances now are 'campaign mode' or if he has really moved solidly to the right. It's tough to say whether the gain he makes with the swing voters by taking a stand against gay 'marriage' and equal rights is worth it.

[wtmusic]

2. agree that he is being disingenuous

and will move left after the election.

You want to believe someone could actually be elected by telling the truth. Maybe it can't happen anymore.

[jpgray]

8. Well Dean for example came close, and he got reamed by the media

It wasn't just the yell, it was also common sense statements that work everywhere but the bizarr-o world of our media pundits. We won't always have the strongest military, the terror alerts may indeed have a political aspect, and we aren't safer without Saddam, but since that all goes against conventional 'wisdom', he gets his ass bitten off every time. It's conceivable that Kerry's campaign is designed more to avoid that than to put out his true plan for governing, but it's not fun to have to defend Byzantine statements like 'I would still have supported that authorization knowing what I know now, but I would have used it properly'--does George Bush exist as president in this hypothetical scenario? It seems to be purposefully designed to allow favorable interpretations from several different sides of the argument, but to a leftist who opposed the war wholeheartedly and doesn't like Congress selling away its Constitutional responsibility, it reeks of either pandering or authoritarianism. But maybe this kind of campaign is what is needed to survive a media that stand to gain so much more profit with Republican governance.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. But Dean got slammed MONTHS ago

People have learned a lot about the war since then. To them it looks like Kerry is behind the curve.

[jpgray]

50. Dean is still getting slammed--I gave one recent example

No one but a fool would disagree with 'there may be a political element to these terror alerts', yet the pundits treat it as some shocking, fringe concept.

[wtmusic]

49. it's looking a whole lot like Dean's downfall

had more to do with his anti-media-consolidation views than "the yell" or anything else he said or did.

Media consolidation and BBV are two of the most insidious trends in US politics.

[jpgray]

51. It's hard to guess the source

The media blitz had to do both with his going against the conventional wisdom (refusing to pander to the establishment) AND with his presumed front-runner status. I don't want to guess which had the most impact, or how these things work exactly, but those appear to me to be the two factors. With something as complicated as the downfall of a political campaign, I wouldn't know how to blame exactly one thing for it.

[The Hair in my Nose]

39. In the center...

lies, lies.

But that's OK cause we can call it pragmatism.

Do you hear what we are saying? Our core values must be hidden so we can win.

Think I'll go take a shower. ***sigh***

[jpgray]

43. Well, that's the question

Is it worth never compromising on displaying your core values if the price is having no voice in the system? Is it worth hiding those values whenever it is politically expedient simply because they are unpopular? I don't know how to answer those questions.

[cynatnite]

4. Yes

For this race, I do think he has to play to the center and I don't disagree with it. There are things I do wish he would do, but I understand his reasons for not doing it.

I believe he should say that gays should be allowed to marry and I'm not convinced he completely believes that. Even if he did, he'd get creamed for it because most American's don't support it enough at this point. I think it'll be a while before this country is ready for it, unfortunately. That's just one thing, for example.

As a vet, the security issue is important. Especially in this post-9/11 world we live in. I want someone who can be strong and isn't afraid of using it when absolutely necessary. Clinton showed us that he can be strong and smart when dealing with use of the military. I believe Kerry will do a much better job than Bush in that arena and we won't be going it alone as we have been. I think the rest of the world wants to get rid of Bush as badly as we do.

His position on the Iraq war is tough because it's complicated. He has to look at what he believed to be the truth at that time plus what the mandate of the resolution from the security council says. A quick blurb on TV isn't going to work. I would like to see him make the rounds on the morning news shows such as Today to better explain it. It would make the evening news, I think.

Most importantly I want him to win. I want him to soundly beat Bush at the voting booth so there is no dispute at who is president. The repubs will have to sit down and in the words of O'Lielly 'Shut Up!'

Overall, I think he's doing a fine job at handling his campaign. Remember the numbers before the convention? They're getting better and as long as he doesn't let his guard down, keep working, not let up and show what he's made of and what Bush isn't at the debates, he'll win.

I have no doubt that Edwards will be a great VP and Kerry will be a great president.

Cyn:)

[JI7]

6. he does personally believe gays should have right to marry

from what he has said and done in the past i believe those are his beliefs. he has also attended many same sex weddings .

this is one issue i know his position is based on what will help him best politically rather than his personal belief.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. I don't believe he is playing to the center.

I believe Democrats like him are prowar, and are intentionally marginalizing those who are not. The majority of the public is opposed to it, as are a sizable number of swing voters. I don't think people who like the war are swing voters. They do donate to the dlc though.

I don't believe that people who think the Iraq war is a good thing are just as tough on security since this war actually damages it.

[sampsonblk]

9. I second what you said

The pro-war minority in this party happens to be in control and are ignoring the other 70-80% of us in favor of the swing vote, that 7-10% who after 4 disastrous years still can't figure out who the heck to vote for. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
(No pun intended)

[jpgray]

10. Taking campaign statements as an accurate portrayal of a candidate?

That doesn't usually work. FDR, Truman, and this current president all made promises they promptly broke. GWB after all was the one who said the US shouldn't meddle with other nations, using our military where we aren't wanted. He also said we shouldn't nation build, or arrogantly try to force other cultures to do it our way. He said all those things in 2000, and of course that is not an accurate portrayal of his own governing. So I think it isn't wise to take a campaign platform at face value.

As for your second point, if most people thought the way you and I do, Republicans wouldn't consistently lead in polls about national security, yet they do. The media have convinced whole swaths of our population that defense spending + imperialism = safety and security. Kerry's campaign may be playing up to that while planning to govern differently.

Although I may be wrong and Kerry is stating exactly what he plans to do, I don't believe that's the case.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. The polls show the majority would like to leave Iraq`

That is an objective fact. National Security is nebulous.

James Rubin, Kerry's foriegn policy advisor said recently Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq.

It isn't a campaign strategy. It is the philosophy of the prowar dlc dems and they look for voting blocks that support that.

Progressive voting blocks that would have opposed this war could be found too, but that wouldn't be part of their agenda.

[jpgray]

18. Can you cite? I have several polls that say the opposite

* A Pew Research Center poll conducted in mid-July gave respondents a binary choice between "keep troops in Iraq" or "bring troops home as soon as possible" and found only 43% opted for the latter.

* A June ABC/Washington Post poll found 57% chose to keep military forces in Iraq "until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties."

* A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in late June found that 54% said that the United States should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time," while only 40% opted for the alternative of turning over control to Iraqis as soon as possible "even if Iraq is not completely stable."
-----------------

Here's a poll that does show the possibility of a coalition like you mention--55% in this case support either leaving as soon as possible or within 18 months regardless of the situation. But the three above polls show a majority agrees with Kerry's current statements

* An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in late June gave Americans three choices about what should be done now, and found no majority agreement with any:

A) "American troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now or as soon as possible," chosen by 24% of respondents

B) "American troops should be withdrawn from Iraq according to a specified timetable and leave within the next 18 months regardless of the situation at that time" (31%)

C) "American troops should stay as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years" (43%)

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12688

[Classical_Liberal]

23. So then we stay there five years.

Those numbers were actually much more in repuke favor before Dean started criticizing the war. I think American public opinion is maleable on this and have seen polls showing a majority want out now. I have no idea where to find recent poll numbers. A net search will get you poll numbers from five years ago that don't even relate to Iraq.

How would that opinion change if the Americans knew how little enthusasm there was in Europe for rescuing us, which is what Kerry claims will happen. Kerry surely knows these things, but he isn't a statemen or a leader or a visionary, nor terribly responsible if he is really against the war. I don't believe he opposes it.

Indeed James Rubin says he doesn't.

[jpgray]

27. Depending on what happens, I don't think we'll stay five years with Kerry

I don't trust some of the people he has advising him on foreign policy, but he is superior to Bush, and has made several overtures to the effect of reducing the American presence there within a set timeline--his latest statement I believe calls for removing several thousand within the first 10 months of his presidency? But again, it's impossible to tell. If you take the worst case, yes, we are there for at least his first term.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. I don't either but it will be because the Europeans won't help

Kerry unless he liberalizes his foriegn policy not because of Kerry himself and certainly not because of his advisors. My view is the Europeans will do this more likely if nobody is deluded that Kerry is really antiwar.

[jpgray]

31. I don't think the Europeans have enough help to give

France and Germany simply do not have enough troops to help out in a significant way--a good portion of Germany's leftover forces are draftees, for example. Adopting a more congenial occupation policy or internationalizing things to a degree might curb some of the overwhelming support the insurgency has, but in my view we cannot control Iraq even if we had 100,000 more troops on the ground. I think the best 'stay' strategy would involve turning over political and reconstruction authority wholly to the UN, and then permanently removing all the antagonistic trappings of imperialism, such as the fourteen bases and the contracts for oil, etc. But that strategy still sucks, frankly. 'Fixing' Iraq may be all but impossible by Jan 2005.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. They have money though and that helps too.

.

[JI7]

7. Afghanistan

i wonder why they don't do the same with Afghanistan.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Because Al Qaeda was actually there, and it could be justified

Though there are many particularly Kucinich voters that opposed it. Those opposed to the Iraq War were opposed because it had no justification, not because we were pacifists.

[JI7]

12. Al Qaeda was/is in the United States also

i guess there is justification in us being attacked also.

[Classical_Liberal]

as cells, not operating training camps and running the government.

. However, I would have preferred a Delta Force targeted operation against them instead of a war.

[JI7]

19. they sure are running the government through Bush

and his Saudi buddies.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. Well that relies on the bigoted assumption that all Saudies are Al Qaeda

In fact Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the Saudi Royal family. Bush is there oil partner no doubt and I am sure they love his oil friendly policies.

[JI7]

26. i'm referring to the Saudi royal family which funds al qaeda

to protect their own non democratic opressive regime which steals the wealth of the nation for themselves.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. The saudi royal family, those that govern the place, wouldn't fund their

own coup plotters. They did fund them in in the Afghan Solviet War but so did Carter and REagan. There maybe individuals that do. The Saudi royal family had over 3000 members. They may have protected their more rad members from investigation, but those rad members are plotting overthrow of their regime. Bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the Saudi Royal family. The Saudis are fundies and they have funded Bin Laden's extreme strain of Islam being taught in the madrassa schools, but they are not Al Qaeda.

[JI7]

30. what they do breeds support for al qaeda

and the saudis HAVE kept extremists from going after them by paying them off.

just as american consumption of oil and lack of conservation or research and use into alternative sources of energy ends up contributing to the mess in the middle east.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. I am not going to argue with that

.

[jpgray]

13. Actually, I don't believe Afghanistan, the way we did it, was justified

We basically were keeping only a very limited number of soldiers there while letting the warlords do all the fighting. We waited months before getting into the region where Bin Laden was likely to be hiding, Pakistan did nothing to protect its own borders against any exodus, and we didn't bother cleaning up the Taliban when it fled beyond Kabul and other major cities because we didn't have the forces and the warlords wanted to consolidate their own holdings. We did Afghanistan half-assed because Bush was mostly interested in Iraq, and doing Iraq before Afghanistan would have raised more red flags and caused more trouble than attacking Afghanistan first. So under the guidance of Blair Bush did them in the order he did.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, we would have had more soldiers for

Afghanistan. Nobody fucking agrees with the way they did it, but Bush dropped that war and went on his Iraq crusade with the help of many Democrats.

[JI7]

17. even before Iraq there were not enough soldiers in Afghanistan

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Iraq insured there would never be.

.

[JI7]

22. There were no troops in Iraq then

[Classical_Liberal]

25. Never said otherwise

and don't understand your gripe on this issue.

[JI7]

32. war in afghanistan is for unjust reasons

[Classical_Liberal]

34. I think it was unjust the way it was carried out, but nobody invented

Al Qaeda, or the fact that Al Qaeda was intimately tied with the Talebans. I don't see how troop numbers in Iraq prove the war in Afghanistan unjust.

[JI7]

36. war in Afghanistan was unjust because of the reasons for the war

which had nothing to do with going after al qaeda or any other terrorists.

[cynatnite]

21. Supported Afghanistan

I had no problem with Afghanistan and I still believe it should have been done. I do agree that it was half-assed and I kept hoping more would be done.

I do think Bush delayed unnecessarily. The signs were all there when Massoud was assassinated. I also think now, Bush doesn't care all that much anymore about Afghanistan.

The human right abuses there are just nauseating, but there's the Sudan, too. What set that country apart was Al Qaeda. If they had been in any other country, Afghanistan would still be under the Taliban.

Bush got his blank check and his authority by milking 9/11 for all it was worth which was why he got the go ahead to invade Iraq.

IMO, and I know Kerry would never say it, but Bush, Cheney, Rummy and a few others are nothing more than war criminals.

Cyn:)

[BayouBengal07]

16. The way I see it

He's taking a calculated risk. By playing to the centre, he pulls centrists, moderate Republicans, and swing voters. On the other hand, he alienates people further to the left of his centrist image. My only guess is that his managers assume (and I hope) that those on the left he alienates are so comitted to getting Bush out that they won't go to Nader.

Hope it works. It doesn't really bother me. Sure, I'd like to see universal healthcare, gay marriage, and a tougher stance against Israel, but I can' expect everything. I've been a lifelong Dem because they are the party closest to my views that can actually win.

[jpgray]

37. That's my view of his strategy as well

What I don't know is if it is necessary, if the gains are worth the losses, or if he really has moved to the right.

[ibegurpard]

38. If I was completely confident that most of it was campaign rhetoric

then, no, it wouldn't bother me. Trouble is, I fear that much of this is actually how he plans to govern and that DOES bother me.

[jpgray]

42. Which parts do you think are not campaign rhetoric?

I'm most concerned about some of his foreign policy team--I think domestically Kerry could be as solid as could be expected of a mainstream candidate.

[union_maid]

40. Iraq - how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?

Kerry knows he's going to inherit a situation not of his making. The IWR of any Democrat was a token vote either way. Nothing in his history suggests he's a war monger or anxious to take us into a war unnecessarily. But the situation in Iraq is one that's been created by the Bush administration. It's not going to disappear retroactively when Kerry takes office. It would be politically very easy to say that it was a mistake to go in. People are ready to believe that. They do believe it. He probably believes it. But getting out is another matter. It would be a miracle for him to be able to do it without asking some more men and women to die. Well, that's what I think that's about. I think it based on the whole of Kerry's life and not just on things that have happened in the last year or so.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. People are acting like he's the 1st candidate to ever run to the center

For those with short-term memory loss, this is the winning strategy employed by every Democrat elected to the presidency since 1964. It is NOT an indiation of how he will govern, neccessarily. Get your panties out of the wad they're in, y'all. Sheesh!

:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

47. and this also isnt gasp the first time Ive disagreed with a presidential

candiate. What a shocker, he could be playing the same game Bush played, you know act like a centrist yet be hiding your true intentions.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. It is NOT about running to the center

Even people in the center will understand the truth if you tell it to them. Most of the centrists I know are Disgusted with this war. Kerry is not impressing them, he is reinforcing their disdain for his innability to take a stand on any issue.
Dean is a centrist, he knows the war was shit. There are REPUBLICANS willing to say we shouldn't have gone. Why is it so liberal and dangerous to express that TRUTH? Surely centrists don't approve of what has happened? Why should they vote for Kerry when he is agreeing with bush on the very issues where they disagree with bush?

The issues can't simply be stuck somewhere on a left/right line and dismissed by sound bites. Why couldn't Kerry say that knowing what we know now, he would not have voted for the IWR? Where is the trap? It seems a perfect way to slam bush to me.

[lastliberalintexas]

48. I agree, these aren't simply left-right issues

We've moved far beyond the flat left/right spectrum used to describe politics.


My problem with Kerry's campaign is that he, just like the repubs, is treating the American public as if they are stupid. Now I'm usually just as disgusted with the majority of our citizens as the next person, but I really don't thin kthe majority of Americans are stupid, just ignorant/misinformed. And there is a huge difference between the two.

But by playing along with their ignorance rather than challenging it, Kerry is reinforcing their stereotypes and pre-conceved notions about liberals being wusses, repubs being strong, Shrub being a decisive leader, etc.

Maybe I am further in the minority than I thought, and maybe I'm giving Americans more credit than they deserve here. But I know teachers who've told me that their students usually only excell when much is expected of them. I don't think we should treat our adult voters any differently.

[jpgray]

52. In this media climate, a campaign run this way would be in trouble:

"The issues can't simply be stuck somewhere on a left/right line and dismissed by sound bites."

Have you watched cable news (or even network news) for any extended period of time? Sound bites rule TV news, and TV news shapes the opinions of many, many voters. As a Dean supporter, I'm sure you were around when Dean's stances got mischaracterized left and right. He wasn't a whacko liberal, he had a very centrist history in VT--he just happened to enjoy going against the conventional wisdom. But you'd have a hard time telling that to the pundits, because a pragmatic centrist (what Dean was, in my view) can't be identified as such if what he says flies in the face of what the major media have been pumping for several months. You can craft the most finely worded statement on a thorny issue, preparing for all sides of attack and yet still you will be eviscerated because they will switch tacks and attack your issues as insights into your personality--you become angry, a liar, a flip-flopper, whatever. There is no defense against that, and defending against it only cements the charge.

You've seen what happens to folks who go against the conventional wisdom publicly in this climate--they don't tend to win presidential elections.

[ScreamingMeemie]

46. I am not really disgusted, I am merely saddened that many seem

to be accepting a brush off of his war vote. It can be spun in any direction,but, if the average guy on the street knew what was going to happen when Bush got that vote in his hot little hands, shouldn't our congresspeople have known. I won't ever accept the "duped" line. I never will. It has cost us many lives and I think our congresspeople and our candidate (who I have every intention of happily voting for) need to own it.

We were enraged then, and I am still engraged. A good friend's son is never coming home and my 46 year old cousin is over there.

[jpgray]

53. I think fewer are accepting it than you think

I personally think his war vote was a lousy vote then, a lousy vote now, and his recent statement is too bizarre for words. In a nutshell it was: 'Knowing what I know now, I would still have voted for that authority, but I would have used it correctly'--what does that mean? Is Bush still president in this weird scenario where it is used correctly? It seems to be either purposefully vague or woefully incoherent. The IWR was a crap resolution, but I can theoretically agree that in the hands of a competent president, it could have been used to get cooperation from Saddam to declare the inspections a success and ensure a peaceful 'victory'. However we didn't have a competent president who wanted peace, and that should have been clear to anyone in 2002 and it sure as hell is clear now. But since I don't know what Kerry means, I don't know how to judge his weird statement.

Anyone who was pissed off the last year and a half is still pissed off, or they weren't pissed off to begin with. Anyway, the reason I will defend Kerry is because I much prefer he be elected over Bush. I don't care if my principles are somehow tarnished by my enabling the corporate duopoly--I do not want Bush as president for four more years. That's it. There are plenty of differences there worthy of voting on, and I will vote on them. Criticism of Kerry is very important, but providing a viable defense is something I always try to do. I still hold out hope that his platform is much to the right of the way he plans to govern. It's the tradition of presidential politics to move to the center, so this should be no surprise. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my best guess.