Kerry boxed himself in with his war resolution vote

[PlanetBev]

I never believed, not even one second, that he had convictions behind that asshole vote. It was a politically expedient, finger in the wind move, and it cornered him like a trapped animal. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd stayed true to their principles, why the hell couldn't Kerry? In 2002 and now, the Democratic leadership has been rewarded for appeasing Chimp by being picked off, one by one.

As long as Democrats keep trying to imitate the Republicans, they will strew their own path with a thousand banana peels. If I see them cleave anymore to the Right again, then I know the Democratic party is doomed. I feel that the party leaders don't give a shit about the rank and file. While I was marching my ass off against the war on the streets of Los Angeles, the Dem leadership, save a few, were tripping over each other to hand Chimp their lunch money.

Fuck

[JVS]

1. But don't you understand that he actually voted to bring sunshine and...

happiness to the entire world? It just got twisted around as a vote for war.

[barb162]

133. I thought that authorization was a total mistake. I couldn't

believe so many liberal Dems like Clinton, Kerry, etc., went along with that idiotic authorization that day. Bryd had the balls to speak out and vote against it. Why couldn't the others like Kerry. He cooked his own goose; the pugs really used that against him in a vicious way when he was campaigning.

[NYCGirl]

2. And then when asked, "If you knew then what you know now..."

he fell right back into the trap! I think that was the fatal step in the not-very-good campaign.

[robbedvoter]

17. Yup. Dumbest answer he ever gave, Instead of going on WMD...

Hillary had a good one: "I would imagine that , knowing that there was no threat, we wouldn't be having this discussion" Then of course, Ruslut brought her back to earth: "But Kerry said..." so she had to backtrack: "Kerry is right, of course"

[Kahuna]

23. That was a fatal misstep, for sure.

nt

[barb162]

134. ditto; he was all over the place trying to rationalize, explaining

away constantly. He couldn't admit he made a mistake voting for it.

[JVS]

37. Maybe we could start a thread of Kerry's gaffes

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Wrong, that was a damned if you do even more damned if you don't question

The question as spun by the Republicans and the mainstream media was "Senator Kerry, are you willing to turn your back on our troops by saying that they are fighting for no reason."

Answer no would not have voted IWR, he is saying yes to that.

Answer yes would have voted for IWR, he is saying no to that, but is still a flip-flopper cause he criticizes Bush on the war.

Mary Landrieu stated that she regretted her IWR vote and the local radio talk show hosts painted the exact same picture of her as I stated above.

[barb162]

135. Kerry could have answered :I will never turn my back on the

military; I want them out of Iraq. The chickenhawk who sent them there never fought in a war and this war should never have been started.

Kerry could have been merciless with Bush on this.

[zulchzulu]

3. Oi vey...just when you thought the IWR beast was dead

People have developed bloody sores on their fingers here talking about all shades of this issue.

Let me boil it down for you.

Kerry voted for the UN to do its job and continue inspections for WMDs as well as have Chimpy make sure to get the support from our allies and to go to war as a last resort.

Guess what happened...

[NYCGirl]

4. Yes, you know that, we know that, Kerry knows that, but obviously

the rest of the world doesn't. And it hurt him, bad.

[zulchzulu]

14. Granted, Kerry needed to stop the $87B For/Against "error"

I was one of a few drivers who drove around the Kerry staff for the Debate #1 prep in Spring Green, WI.

One of the people I shuffled off to the "Shed" (where the debate prep was) was Joe Lockhart.

It was about 7AM and I was freshly caffeinated. I asked (sort of out of line) Joe how Kerry was going to nip the $87B For/Against "error" in the bud in the debate or otherwise.

He was concerned and said they "were working on it". The next 1.2 minutes were silence, albeit some Ornette Coleman I had playing low.

I knew then that somehow it would not ever get firmly trounced. And the next weeks when I was doing grassroots stuff, that was always a Repug "comeback"..."he was for it before he was against it"... pay on mind that they didn't want an explanation.

As for candidates like Dean, if he was running, I'm sure he would have continued his series of gaffes that he was prone to due from November 2003 until he dropped out. Imagine what they would have done to him.

[NYCGirl]

25. Were we talking about Howard Dean here? I didn't think so.

Hey, remember Dr. Dean's gaffe about "We're no safer with the capture of Saddam"? Remember that firestorm (I especially thought Lieberman would give himself an embolism over it)? He was right.

And remember after the primaries when Dr. Dean was on CNN and said that awful gaffe about how when the Bush administration was in trouble they trotted out Tom Ridge? Both parties screamed bloody murder about that. Came out a day or two later that the intel they used to raise the threat level was old...well, you get my drift.

Sometimes what are called "gaffes" can be good things. Some like the muddy IWR vote justification and the awful $87 billion one are not.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. Dean's Gaffes....like The world is no safer without Saddam

and the war was wrong and the money spent a waste... Damn Howard for those Gaffes.

Kerry voted for war because he knew that was exactly what was going to happen. He did it because he wanted to run for president. BTW, Edwards did the same thing.

[janx]

91. Oh dear, you are one of the people Dean needs most, and

you are a person Dean supports most.

[CTLawGuy]

6. Thats what you'd like to think he voted for

in fact, he voted to give the president the power to go to war in Iraq for virtually any reason. It was an irresponsible thing to do.

He voted for the one resolution that Bush most preferred. I'm sure Bush would prefer a resolution that ties his hands up :eyes:

[anamandujano]

7. Did we get any major speeches

complaining that they were betrayed when they (the dems who voted that way, including Hilary) saw what was happening? I didn't hear anything.

If he had set the record straight at the time, he could have just played the tape during the campaign instead of letting the issue be "the gift that kept on giving" (Rove).

[PlanetBev]

9. I'm not saying that Kerry is not a good and decent man

Thirty years ago, when American was somewhat normal, Bush could not have even gotten his party's nomination. If he did, his approval rating would be in the teens. Kerry would have destroyed him.

Unfortunately, these are not normal times and running a half way decent campaign doesn't cut it anymore. Damn shame.

[Guaranteed]

10. Yeah, none of us saw THAT coming. nt

[Quetzal]

11. It took 5 flamewars to finally understand his rationale on the vote

and then it took me even longer to trust that was his intention.

There was so much shit flying around during the primaries, I sort of just shut myself out of many of the discussions.

[JVS]

12. It was suppressed during the election. Now that Kerry has lost it has...

returned

[robbedvoter]

19. Why didn't Kerry support the Kennedy, Byrd amendments?

Still waiting for that explanation.
In case you forgot what they were:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/2/1/84318/48694

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. a year after we are attacked by one group... we must allow the President

to invade and occupy an unrelated country? No

[willysnout]

119. You Misunderstand

I don't approve of the invasion of Iraq. Nor did Kerry. He voted to authorize the use of force if Iraq didn't comply with the UN Resolutions and there was no other way to handle it. That vote ought to be viewed in its proper context. Kerry's failure was to not explain his vote in a simple sentence or two, early in the campaign.

[Guaranteed]

8. Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes. This is why you maintain your integrity.

THIS is why you don't back down on your principles.

Just a great post. Thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Was Robert Byrd True To His Principles When He Voted For DOMA

on edit- obviously I meant Byrd voted for DOMA since that's how he actually voted...

[scarletwoman]

16. And your point is..........? (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. His Vote For DOMA Was Totally Fucked Up...

Fucked up beyond words...


on edit-same mistake as my previous post... a vote's a vote...

[JVS]

21. I think perhaps a little background info might be in order

edit typo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. what context...

It's obvious Bobby Byrd doesn't think gay folks are as deserving of rights as straight folks...

[JVS]

44. Wasn't DOMA, the defense of marriage act?

And wasn't it against gay marriage?

[scarletwoman]

40. So, are you saying you LIKE the Defense of Marriage Act?

I'm really not sure why opposing it is "fucked up", imho a vote against it is cause for admiration not castigation. :shrug:

sw

[JVS]

47. Ah, ok, now it makes sense

[scarletwoman]

55. Yeah, nothing like subject line edit to say the exact OPPOSITE thing.

Yeah, NOW it makes sense.

Sheeesh.

sw

[Cheswick2.0]

66. did he vote that way because he was running for Office? Nope

It may suck , but that vote is not killing thousands of people and it wasn't to advance his career.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. It Was Even Worse Because It Was A Heart Felt Belief...

In his heart he thinks gay folks are undeserving of basic human rights...

[robbedvoter]

27. Did Byrd run for POTUS? Against Kerry? How is this pertinent?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. If You Are Crucifying Kerry For IWR You Should Be Beatifying Him For DOMA

nt

[JVS]

42. Has the DOMA led to thousands of deaths?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Just Second Class Citizenship For Millions (nt)

[Cheswick2.0]

67. yes and the right to marry way outtrumps killing 100k people

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. It Was About Fundamental Fairness...

[IndianaGreen]

104. Opposition to same sex marriage is second class citizenship

Both Kerry and Edwards believed that gays did not deserve the same rights as all other American citizens.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Kerry Voted For IWR Because It Was Politically Expedient...

Byrd voted for DOMAS cuz he doesn't think gay folks deserve the same rights as strg8 folks....

[Cheswick2.0]

60. Yes actually he was................ he's a social conservative on such

issues. I don't like it but he is an old man and he makes up for that by what he knows about the constitution and for his stand against the war and patriot act.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. My Mom's Older Than Bobby Byrd-She's 86

and she thought DOMA was wrong...

[Cheswick2.0]

69. well bully for her

I think it is wrong too.

I won't post on this off topic subject again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. I Only Brought It Up

because the seminal poster held out Robert Byrd as a paragon of virtue for voting against the IWR and John Kerry as lacking in virtue for voting for IWR...

Now I am being consistent...


I will hold out John Kerry as the paragon of virtue for voting against DOMA and hold out Robert Byrd as lacking in virtue for voting in favor of DOMA.


Also, I am sorry if I interrupted the crucifixion of John Kerry in this thread ....Can he "die" for my sins too....

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Byrd favors the "old ways", the guy is a great statesman but socially...

He's just as bad or worse than the repukes. Admirable in his stances on foreign and domestic policy but old and out of touch on social issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. I Once Had A List Of The DOMA Votes...

Only twelve senators opposed it...

John Kerry was one of them...


His IWR vote sucked but just as none of us want to be judged by our worst act imho John Kerry shouldn't be judged by his worst vote...

[Hippo_Tron]

108. I never did judge him for it, I understand the circumstances...

Kerry is a hell of a lot better than the asshole that we have running the country right now, IWR vote or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. 100%

nt

[no name no slogan]

137. Well, Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA

...which he not only regretted later, but apologized for in his book The Conscience of a Liberal

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with Kerry's IWR vote. Like others have said, DOMA didn't kill tens of thousands of people.

[Leilani]

15. I never could feel comfortable with the tortured reasoning

& I think many others were troubled.

[zulchzulu]

18. Listen to Kerry on March 1, 2003 concerning this very issue

http://www.writersact.com/kerry/media/kerry-war.mp3

Kerry Warning Bush not to rush to war in Iraq (March 1, 2003)
(MP3 / 192bps stereo/ 3.4MB / 1:38)

He certainly warned Chimpy not to rush to war.

[CTLawGuy]

22. he should have not enabled Bush to rush to war

the Dems controlled the Senate. they could have killed the IWR or forced a better resolution on Bush.

Its like giving a child a beer and telling him not to drink it.

[zulchzulu]

26. Wrong... Repugs 51 Dems 46 in 2003

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/senate/

The Repugs rammed the war down the World's throats.

[CTLawGuy]

28. in october 2002, when the IWR was voted on,

Tom Daschle was the Majority Leader, granted by one single seat, but still...

Thats when the war should have been stopped.

[zulchzulu]

Maybe I saw you in the streets protesting the War in 2002

There were so many of us.

Again, the IWR was not a free pass for Bush to attack Iraq. He just thought it was.

[CTLawGuy]

33. oh really

where were all the lawyers going to court to stop bush from violating the law?

When did Kerry come out and say Bush was violating IWR?

The answers are nowhere and never.

[scarletwoman]

49. Sure. That's why it's called the Iraq-lets-go-to-the-UN resolution

instead of the Iraq War Resolution. :eyes:

sw

[Carolina]

106. excellent point!

[Cheswick2.0]

72. nope...everyone knew it was a free pass

LIBERAL and centrist democrats voted against it.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Subtract Chafee, add Bayh, Miller, and Lieberman...

All 3 of which were 100% behind the Iraq war, and would've definately voted for the resolution, it would've passed 52-48. That's not factoring in many other dems who would've voted for the war for non political reasons.

[JVS]

30. IWR vote happened before the 2002 elections, Einstein

[zulchzulu]

36. You are correct

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Here are the votes.

I was referring to how it might be possible to end the attack in early 2003 before the March 19th attack.

[meow2u3]

24. If I were Kerry, I would have told Bush this during the debates

I trusted you to do the right thing, but you violated my trust and rushed to war anyhow!

[zulchzulu]

29. He did pretty much say that during all three debates

Maybe you missed it...

[CTLawGuy]

31. Kerry had no credibility on the war issue

because whenever Kerry criticized the war, bush said...

"you voted for it"

"you saw the same intelligence I did, and came to the same conclusion."

[Eloriel]

32. Yes, he did. But that's not why he lost.

It's the VOTE FRAUD, stupid. (And I don't mean you are stupid -- I hope you recognize I'm borrowing a phrase, so to speak.)

Please see just a fractions of these links:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

ALSO SEE: VOTE FRAUD? What can we do? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701028#

********SEND THESE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND MEDIA TOO *********
Best Fraud Summary I've seen!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x57214
Link: http://www.bopnews.com
Updated Version: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=61029

NEW Berkeley Study: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu (scroll down)
and: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html

[JVS]

35. A good point, but one that goes against DU precedence

Remember that in 2000 the GOP stole Florida, but the Greens were chosen as the proper target for the bulk of the blame. Cheating gets a free pass.

[Cheswick2.0]

76. not true jvs..

The Greens only got their fair share of the blame. There was plenty of discussion about the fraud.

[JVS]

78. Maybe at first, but there have been a dispropotionate number of threads...

about the 2000, compared to the number of threads about the non-counting of votes.

[scarletwoman]

34. "I never believed, ...that he had convictions behind that... vote."

And THAT'S the thing -- CONVICTIONS (or lack thereof).

I hope everybody is aware of the fact that Senator Russ Feingold (D - with CONVICTIONS) won re-election in Wisconsin by a WIDER margin than the vote for Kerry. 15% Republicans, and 65% Independents supported Feingold, who voted AGAINST the IWR -- and do you know why?

Because they liked that he had the courage to take a stand. They may not have even agreed with the stand he took, but they trust him and respect him because he demonstrated that he has the GUTS to stand up for what he believes is right!

It's that "character" issue. Whether any of us likes it or not, it IS a factor.

sw

[zulchzulu]

39. What about Dean's approval of Biden-Lugar Amendment...

Remember that old debate? Or his approval of attacking Afghanistan?

I guess the question is:
Is Kerry forever tarnished in your mind becuase he voted for the UN to do its job?

[CTLawGuy]

45. B-L

is much different than IWR, so different that Bush claimed B-L "tied his hands".

B-L only allows force for the express purpose of eliminating WMD.

IWR allows war for virtually any purpose.

The UN doesnt need Kerry's vote to do its job. WE needed Kerry to vote to defend international law and US credibility.

[zulchzulu]

82. Are time machines available on eBay yet?

Let me know.

[CTLawGuy]

109. I will

:freak:

[gulfcoastliberal]

130. You know who was instrumental in Killing B-L? Harry fucking Reid

We're doomed.

[sangh0]

43. Where are the war protests?

If that is the issue that turned the election then why aren't there any large protests? Why isn't there an large anti-war movement?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

50. So then why did it swing the election?

If it's not so big an issue because of the reasons you gave, then why is it a big enough issue to swing an election? I would think that a single issue so important that it could swing a national election would be accompanied by a minimum of social action.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

58. Who said the war wasn't an issue?

You know, it really was a very simple question, so I don't know why you are having so much trouble answering it. If the war was SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IT SWUNG AN ELECTION, then why isn't there a more active anti-war movement?

The Iraq War was a huge issue for me in the election, but I'm not going to attend a street protest.

What does THAT have to do with this? It's not about YOU.

Who ever demonstrated for a budget allocation issue, anyway?

Millions, and please stop dragging such irrelevant arguments into this, and instead, answer my simple and relevant question.

I still oppose the war, but I just don't think there's a focal point for mass demonstrations of the kind that would draw tends of thousands of people.

Gee, I guess you missed the protests where HUNDREDS of thousands showed up.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

74. I agree

I do think it was a significant issue, but I tend to find arguments like "The election was lost because of this one issue" boring and overly simplistic. Based on my observations, elections are won and lost for a variety of reasons.

And as far as protests go, they are no panacea. I agree with you there too, but since it's still the "traditional" way to express political dissent, I would have expected more activity if this one issue were that important as to be able to swing an entire election.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

83. Yes, it's the "autopsy"

it serves no purpose.

And yes, there were mistakes and blunders, conveniently magnified by our objective media.

And after every loss we hear "We have to examine what we did wrong" but unfortunately, these autopsies always come to the same conclusions "If only he had listened to ME"

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYCGirl]

52. Me and about a million others marched through the streets of NY during the

RNC. Perhaps you saw it on the news. And there are actions every week here in NYC. We're still involved.

Edited to add: And NYC went for Kerry 83%.

[sangh0]

61. I attended that protest. Where are the other mass protests?

It took years of protesting and activism before the Viet Nam War influenced presidential elections. I see no evidence that the IWR is single-handedly responsible for this loss.

It's like the people who say "Gore lost because of Nader". There were many factors, some larger than others, that go into every win and every loss. Those who want to focus it all on one item have an agenda.

[NYCGirl]

63. Spend any time around Union Square?

Couple of weeks ago that bike group whose name escapes me at the time was doing an event. Cops everywhere!

[sangh0]

70. Critical Mass

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think they're protesting the war.

And I'm familiar with Union Square. I'm in the area regularly, but the activity there is not close to the scale I was thinking would accompany an issue that's important enough to swing an election.

But please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is no anti-war movement, or that this issue was not a significant influence in this election. It certainly was. I just have a bias agains the idea that one issue swung this election. In my experience and opinion, most elections are won for a variety of reasons, and lost for a variety of reasons, and I don't see any evidence that the loss due to this issue is greater than the losses due to other reasons, such as voter fraud and disenfranchisment.

[NYCGirl]

79. Thanks. That's them.

I agree with Scarletwoman who posted above, that it's not the war that is the point here. It's Senator Kerry's tiptoeing around the issue that made him sound like he lacked conviction.

[sangh0]

89. The only principle I'm willing to "stand up for"

is doing things that actually change things for the better. If Kerry had voted NO on IWR, nothing would have changed. While moral ends won't justify immmoral means, meaningless ends justify nothing, IMO.

It's Senator Kerry's tiptoeing around the issue that made him sound like he lacked conviction.

I think there is some truth to this, but I think that's more an issue of how Kerry explained his vote, and not the actual vote itself. Aside from DU, I didn't hear one liberal complain about his IWR vote, and I work for a very liberal employer where these things are discussed regularly. Some did criticize his explanations (myself included) and many were not happy with that vote, but none of them made it a particularly strong issue of the actual IWR vote.

I don't think the IWR vote itself was much of an issue. In the primaries, Democrats had a choice of candidates who did not vote for IWR, but they seemed to prefer the candidates that supported or voted for IWR.

[scarletwoman]

53. You're missing the point.

It's about standing up for your convictions. Please see my post #34 above.

sw

[sangh0]

75. I don't think a vote on war and peace issues

is the proper place to make a symbolic gesture.

on edit: and the rest of the nation is a lot different than Wisconsin

YOu know, I could cherry pick me an election that shows how the cowardly opponent who never takes a stand on principle won, but that would be simplistic. Plenty of candidates who "took a stand" have lost.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

93. True, but because of the Electoral College

how it's distributed counts for a great deal. It's easier for a state candidate to write a small group off than it's is for a presidential candidate IF the candidate needs the electoral votes the candidate needs. That's why Presidential candidates can't ignore the Jewish vote (Florida).

[scarletwoman]

90. "Symbolic gesture"?!?

Wow. You sure know how to avoid addressing the issue at hand.

Standing on one's principles is a "symbolic gesture" -- gee. And here I thought it was a demonstration of integrity and character. Silly me.

No wonder the New Democrats have been winning so many elections. No silly symbolic gestures for THEM!

Feh...

sw

[sangh0]

94. Yes, it's a symbolic gesture

If it changes nothing, how could be considered anything but "symbolic"?

Wow. You sure know how to avoid addressing the issue at hand.

You can make fun of it all you want, but it would help if you explained what's wrong with my considering as "symbolic" a vote that changes nothing.

[scarletwoman]

105. So, your argument is that if taking a stand "changes nothing",

it's not worth doing? There's no inherent value in holding to principle?

I have nothing else to say.

sw

[sangh0]

113. No, my argument is *IF* it changes nothing

it's a "symbolic gesture".

it's not worth doing?

It's not worth it to me. It's up to you to decide for yourself if it's worthwhile for yourself, and it's up to the politician to decide if it's worthwhile for him/her and his/her constituents, and if that pol makes the wrong decision, the voters can keep them out next election.

There's no inherent value in holding to principle?

My principle is on doing good. If it does not good, I don't see how it upholds my principles.

I have nothing else to say.

That's because I am addressing something that is a basic value. In fact, I'd say it transcends individual values in the sense that this addresses how we envision values and their role in our lives, and that's not subject to debate for most people. In this respect, your values are different than mine. I would not even try to change your values, and by that same token, we can not demand that our politicians adopt our own individual values.

[RafterMan]

99. I don't see that as a reliable predictor

The fact that people are not out in the streets doesn't mean they support the war.

First, there is the human tendency to rationalize -- you want you and your side to have been in the right, so you come up with reasons that make you feel right.

Augmenting this tendency is the fact that there's no large mainstream figure to attach an anti-war view to. Dean is a sideshow, Clark, Clarke and Graham are just on a par with the pundits to most. So while the average person may have doubts about the war, there is no focal point to translate those doubts into beliefs, let alone action.

And that is the point the poster was making -- Kerry's vote and subsequent rhetoric did not put him into a strong position to capitalize on those doubts.

[sangh0]

118. That's why I didn't say "they support the war"

and I'm not saying there is no anti-war movement. What I am doing is refuting the notion, put forth in OP, that the IWR was important enough to enough voters to swing the election. My argument is that if an issue is SO important that it can swing an election all on it's own, then there should be some sort of social and/or political movement attached to it, and the movement should be large and highly visible.

First, there is the human tendency to rationalize -- you want you and your side to have been in the right, so you come up with reasons that make you feel right.

And I could argue that the OP, and those posts that agree with it, are the result of some posters wanting the war to be a big enough issue to swing the election. I wish it were too, but based on the evidence presented here, I can't say that this issue was so important for that many voters that it swung the election to bush*.

Augmenting this tendency is the fact that there's no large mainstream figure to attach an anti-war view to

MLK Jr and Gandhi were nobodies until AFTER they started their movement. I don't thinkwe need to find a celebrity. I think the left needs to create a new one.

And that is the point the poster was making -- Kerry's vote and subsequent rhetoric did not put him into a strong position to capitalize on those doubts.

I agree that the vote, combined with his several explanations of it, resulting in an inability to capitalize on a good deal of the dissatisfaction with the way the war is going. However, that means that it's not JUST the IWR vote (which the subject line suggests it is just IWR) and I really don't think the two (ie the OWR vote and the explanations) combined can account for the loss all by themselves.

I think that, as it is in most elections, there was more to it than just one or two things. IMO there were several. For one thing, there's the issue of voter fraud. Without knowing how many votes that cost us, we can't say if this was an even larger influence on the election results compared to the IWR issue.

[sendero]

59. This is no surprise..

.... I had an uneasy feeling about this from the start. He did have a decent explanation (I voted to give authorization as a last resort, and for negotiating power), it was too nuanced for the flatline braindead public and it was a calculated risk that turned out to be a mistake.

It should be an object lesson as to what happens when you compromise your principles, but it won't be unfortunately.

[merh]

62. Please let me know when you will be running for office

I will be sure to pay attention to your efforts.

[theangrydem]

64. No! Worst campaign In history

Campaigns matter. The Kerry people ran the worst campaign in my lifetime, from the "Let's be nice" convention, to the slow response to Swift boat, the Bush people cleaned Kerry's clock from start to finish, they took someone who should have lost in a landslide right back to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lefthandedskyhook]

73. Everybody makes mistakes

* let von Rumsfeld mismanage a war of choice beyond all sanity; but he didn't go down for it because the right-wing support network is both pervasive and fanatical. Kerry's mistake was small compared to that. If he had been steadily anti-war he might have gotten less votes (as repulsive as it sounds to some of us).

[janx]

88. For moderate voters like me--

that was awful.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. He Lost...

To me it's a tragedy....


Maybe those who hated that vote think it's poetic justice...


There is something tawdry about kicking a man cuz he's down...


If Kerry had won would this be an issue?


I think not...

[janx]

96. I'm not that naive about politics anymore.

It's true that I am an idealist because I write stories. But writing stories also insists that I see things for what they are, and in politics, I generally see them and puke.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. All Politicians Are Trimmers...

If you know that you won't be disappointed...

[janx]

101. I also want to tell you that I think you are incredibly naive--

Politics, unlike art, is a sick and nasty game. A lot of stuff happens in politics that those of us who produce (what we hope to be) gifts like music and paintings and stories truly abhor.

John Kerry is a smart man, but he didn't capture the imagination of the American people.

--jk

[janx]

102. REALLY?

I am your sarcastic professor.

[Carolina]

103. That IWR vote cost him my support

throughout the primary season. In fact, after 10/2002, I went looking for another candidate and liked Wes Clark and Howard Dean. Iowa and NH led to Kerry's electability and subsequent sweep of the primaries, and I was heartsick fearing defeat until the Democratic convention when I thought his speech was a home run and went from ABB to for Kerry.

Still, he could not have both ways on Iraq and I agree with you, he boxed himself in. On the brightside, Iraq will forever be Bush's mess. Had Kerry been elected (and I really think he was, they just stole it ... AGAIN) and been unable to rectify the disaster Bush left behind, Kerry would have gotten ALL of the blame and then some.

[sampsonblk]

110. I Swore I'd NEVER vote for Kerry because of the IWR vote...

But when it came down to it, I had no choice. This whole election cycle was just a bad deal. Even now, since our party didn't stand up and oppose the IWR, Bush still claims "everyone thought" it was right. Knowing the Repubs, and knowing our party leaders, I am not so sure Bush will get his real share of the blame for anything. THAT makes me mad.

[Carolina]

115. good point

I never thought about it that way but you're so right. Our go along to get along Dems aided and abetted this disaster, and now the historical effect on Bush will be mollified because THEY ALL believed it. Damn! Imagine if we had a real opposition party.

[Q]

107. I believe Kerry intended to use the vote for political advantage...

...but when 95 percent of the delegates stated they didn't support the war...he started repositioning himself and made it sound as if he 'flip-flopped'. He was an easy target for the Bushies in that regard.

- And then...after admitting it was the 'wrong war' at the wrong time...he said that he would vote for the same resolution even knowing what he knew about the lies and deception.

- We can praise Kerry for many things...but his campaign was a mess when it came to fighting off the dirty tricks of the Bushies.

[TahitiNut]

111. See ...

"Democrats" lost the election with the Iraq War Resolution

[JCMach1]

112. Precisely what I have said since the primaries

However, no one listended and nominated Kerry...

[zulchzulu]

114. Here was Kerry's explanation

This is Kerry talking about the issue with Paula Zahn on CNN in September 2003. It explains his position pretty concisely:

ZAHN: Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war...

KERRY: No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan. We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us.

The gist is that Bush lied about the intelligence as well as the threat Saddam posed as well flipped the bird at the UN. This was completely opposite to what the IWR was intended.

For some in this thread, it seems as though they forget the climate at the time of the vote. Take, for example, Howard Dean's statement concerning attacking Saddam unilaterally. This was before he changed his tune and was seen as the anti-war candidate a month or so later.

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."
- Howard Dean interviewed on Salon.com (Feb. 2003)

Dean was in the convenient position of not having to go on record with a vote, but if you consider his opinion in February 2003 when the vote was in the fall of 2002, you might presume he would have voted for the IWR.

This assumption is based on one having an open mind and not thinking Dean is some kind of perfect deity.

[ScreamingMeemie]

116. My problem with his clarification is that I knew what Bush was going

to do, my dearest friend, my husband, neighbors...they all knew what Bush was going to do once he had that vote in his war hungry little hand, and yet we're supposed to believe that our congresspeople did not? I can not and will not accept that as a decent answer. This was plain and simple insider politics...with or without Howard Dean pointing it out. I felt this way long before I ever heard Dean speak, or Kucinich for that matter. My most beloved friend, and fellow DUer, remembers well pulling over to the side of the road and crying as they read off the names on this vote. I'm sorry.

[janx]

117. It was pretty obvious that Bush* would go to war in Iraq

no matter what.

I have the same problem that you do: if we and so many other people knew that it would be distastrous to give the Chimp that power, why couldn't so many people in Congress figure it out?

[barb162]

136. yep; I felt the same way when that vote passed with the

help of SO many democrats

[sampsonblk]

120. Still full of problems

For one, everyone knew Bush was going to war. Regardless of the text of the resolution, Bush already had virtually all the troops in place, and could not withdraw them without losing face. He was going to war. So this vote was yes or no on the war, and we all (including Bush and Kerry) knew it at the time.

Secondly: "The gist is that Bush lied about the intelligence as well as the threat Saddam posed..." True. No question. And not a once did Kerry say this during the campaign. Not even once. There are loads of examples to use, and Kerry could have made a compelling case. Meanwhile, all over GOPtv and radio, they were saying Kerry is a liar. But not a once did Kerry say and explain that Bush is the one who lied. I guess he was being nice to attract swing voters. Well THAT did a lot of good...

[zulchzulu]

124. "Not even once"?

Are you kidding (regarding "The gist is that Bush lied about the intelligence as well as the threat Saddam posed...")? Actually, that was from an interview ON TV.

I saw Kerry dozens of times and that was always in a portion of his speeches. I believe he also mentioned it in at least two of the debates.

The problem gets down to the media controlling his message.

[sampsonblk]

125. I am talking about an explanation

Kerry could have given a real explanation that stuck. Bush told him there were WMDs and he voted for the IWR because he trusted Bush. "And I won't make that mistake again." Or something to that effect.

"Misleading" is garbage. Kerry's speeches didn't constitute a condemnation of what Bush had done. They came off as a lame excuse to a lot of people, including me. And he waited till the end of the campaign to even offer that. That looked like a desperate flip-flop to a lot of people.

This is just the way I see it.

[zulchzulu]

126. I could compile a whole lot of references in his speeches about this

...but I wonder if it would be worth the effort.

If your mind is made up with faulty information, so be it.

[sampsonblk]

127. Its not even about that

I don't dispute that you may be able to list a lot of times when he said things. Not at all. But you know as well as I do that it depends on when and where you say it, and it depends on how much of your campaign focus is on a certain issue.

Bush probably has a long list of times he mentioned prescription drugs. But no long list is going to convince me that he really gives a hoot if my grandma can't afford her pills.

I do see where you are coming from. And as I said I can be wrong. But from where I sat, Kerry's "opposition" to Bush's foreign policy was so weak that it was...I can't think of a good word to call it. But you know what I mean. It was baaaad. He needed better advisors, a new speech writer and a conscience.

[sampsonblk]

121. I agree with you - 110%

It was a pathetic betrayal. Sad thing is, I now expect more of the same.

Side point: why is it that every time one of us mentions Kerry's (horrible) mistakes, I dozens of people start piling on Dean in response? Have you noticed that?

[kentuck]

123. That didn't help but....

the straw tha broke the camel's back, in my opinion, was the lack of response to O'Neil and the Swift Boat ads. They never once attacked the messenger, O'Neil, who had worked with Richard Nixon and his gang of thieves back in 1970, and for 3 to 4 weeks consecutive, John O'Neil was permitted to say whatever he wanted about John Kerry and he was never "personally" challenged. So, that hurt.

[no name no slogan]

138. Kerry pulled a Dukakis after the convention

Kerry made the same mistake Dukakis did in '88: they both held back their heavy guns until it was too late to use them effectively.

After the '88 convention, Dukakis came out with a 15% lead over Dubya's Daddy. FIFTEEN PERCENT! There was no way in hell Bush I was going to overcome that!

But what did Bush I do? Started with the negative smear ads: maybe you recall Willie Horton?

Dukakis's team didn't think they needed to go on the offensive after those ads: they held back, waiting for the right moment.

And it passed them by.

Kerry did the same thing: he needed to nail the Swift Liars in their tracks and deflate their attacks. Instead, they waited a couple of WEEKS before they even had a strategy together.

Kerry was a good candidate, with good positions, but he still didn't communicate his VISION. Clinton had one, and he won. Reagan and Dubya had one, and they won.

Kerry had a pocketful of policies, excruciating in their detail, but no vision to tie them together. He didn't articulate it well, and he lost.

Dubya is the worst president since Hoover. Kerry should have stomped him in a landslide. The fact that it was close enough for the Repubs to steal just proves that the campaign didn't work.

[quaker bill]

128. No, we boxed ourselves in by nominating him

Nominating Kerry took the basis for going to war in Iraq off the table for debate. "He saw the same intelligence and supported military action" enough said. The debate then by default was limited to timing and pre-conditions, an argument we could never win.

There was nothing dishonest or stealthy about his vote for IWR. Kerry chose to vote the way he voted and was quite clear with us at the time and during the primaries about how he voted and why he did so. He ran as the candidate we selected.

Kerry ran just exactly the sort of campaign his primary performance and resume predicted. He did it honestly and he worked hard at it. The democrats that selected Kerry were not duped in any way. They got exactly the candidate they paid for.

The primary voters simply did not choose wisely. Their choice, by it's nature, neutered our best argument to replace the Bozo in Chief.

It is not Kerry's fault that he ran as exactly the candidate we selected. It is our fault for selecting him as standard bearer.

[zulchzulu]

129. You mean we "voted" for him

Lemme guess. Dean supporter?

[quaker bill]

141. Yes I do, and Kerry delivered the campaign you "voted" for.

Kerry did all he could do. And we, regardless of who we voted for in the primaries, worked our tails off to get him elected.

Personally I had hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars into this

[barb162]

131. the pugs used that against Kerry calling him a flipflopper over

and over again. It was beyond STUPID for him and so many other Dems to vote for that authorization. Kerry spent so much time explaining that vote and the flipflopper charges that it became a mini-disadster. It showed that any time you cooperate with the pugs they have the potential to stick it up your a-- bigtime.

Never cooperate with the pugs. Speak out against their lying, their Bush War, their rotten economy, their lack of jobs, their lack of real moral values, etc.

Problem is with the vote to make Harry Reid the Senate Dem leader, I think the Dems are totally sunk. That guy is not a liberal. I think he is a closet pug. "... then I know the Democratic party is doomed." I think they are doomed. They NEVER learn. I guess if they are so stupid they never learn, they should cease to exist as a viable party. I think I am joining the Greens or something or getting off politics all together. It is so painful to watch what the pugs are doing to this country and the Dems stand there and cooperate. Drives me insane!

[Toucano]

132. Yeah! All the anti-war voters voted for Bush

because of the IWR vote.

[jbnow]

139. 2001 and 2002 were still

patriotism paranoia time. No one wants to be accused of being unpatriotic when the public is caught up in the flag many made stupid decisions. Who could vote no to the "Patriot Act" with such a name? (and how was it ever written so quickly) Wellstone could if he had lived to. One who did got death threats and a lot of name calling.

The president did "assure" people war would be a last resort and used the right words. Of course most of congress did not really believe him, but an administration gains unusual power when we feel so vulnerable and threatened. Vote no and you are refusing to give this president (still so popular) the ability to protect his people.

In fact were I to write a novel about a group taking power in ways we'd never have believed could happen that would be a great plot.... it might start with a terror attack. Big one, one we'll see over and over. Something dramatic, unbelievable.

Then I'd have, oh maybe a friendly cowboy type president. He'd stand up and make us feel safer. In such an unbelievablyt unsettling time he'd be a good prop, offer an anchors..our country, our flag and our leader. He'd take care of us and he and all the MSM preachers could also remind us of God...our real anchor. Great, a lot of flags and a lot of God. The old testemenst one. He'll keep us safe and he hates gays and orders wars.

Oh I could go on and on about the plot I could write for the story, but you can see the position you place the characters who are voting in if such a book were written.

These are such unusual times. I think it would be a good book...though not an easy time to live for the characters.

Now it's where we go from here. I can think of many ways I'd like to end the novel. It is good to see people taking action, it would make a great twist in the novel.

[Fabio]

140. it was a vote meant to decide us.