Do you think Kerry would have had an easier time if he voted for the 87B?

[fujiyama]

I'm curious to see what others think. Moreso than the authorization for war itself, it seems like the second vote is what bothers people more. The B/C campaign constantly repeats the mantra - "They voted for the war then voted against funding the troops".

It's ridiculous. But really why did they ultimately vote against it? From a political sense, it may have made short term political sense to do so (in a primary against Dean and Clark), but in the long term wasn't it bound to cause problems? It was a pointless protest vote anyways. I don't see how it has been a positive in the long run. Of course I would have preferred Kerry and Edwards to have voted against the war resolution, but that's ancient history. I hope this issue is addressed more effectively. Both candidates have done a great job in their debates thus far, but this issue MUST be put to rest. I hope someone DOES ask about it on the debates on Friday and Kerry does a better job answering it than he did in the first debate. Bush threatened to veto the bill. That's ultimately what should be brought to light. The bill was changed and he threatened to veto it.

On edit, Here's another scenario. Say they voted against the use of force resolution, and for the 87 billion. Would this have made a difference?

[Hello_Kitty]

1. I really don't

Maybe they wouldn't have that first-he-would-then-he-wouldn't-fund-our-troops-flip-flop bullshit on him but knowing them they'd spin the part that Kerry found objectionable. "But Kerry voted FOR the funding that now he's saying is being funneled to Halliburton improperly and it also retained the tax cuts to the wealthy so he was FOR those tax cuts too and now he's AGAINST them what a flip-flopper!" Or something like that. He'd be distorted either way.

[bullimiami]

2. not really

it doesnt matter what kerry did or didnt do the attacks would have been the same.

maybe he could have done a better job framing the rebuttal to the attacks on the 87b vote i dont know because the media is all to willing to promote bush spin without question or inspection.

[ET Awful]

3. Not really, but if he'd point out that Bush threatened to VETO that same

$87 billion, people might pay attention.

[The Magistrate]

That Is An Excellent Point, Sir

And since the reprile in the Oval Office threatened to veto the initial measure Sen. Kerry voted for because it required that revenues be raised to pay for it, it could easily be brought up in a debate on domestic or economic answers, and the charge is devastating: you valued putting more money in the pockets of your rich contributors and cronies and favored corporate thieves over the lives of U.S. soldiers! For shame....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[TheWebHead]

4. probably

but they could have easily skewed it as hey, you voted to authorize war, you voted for additional funding... and if you voted for the additional money, you in effect voted that our post war planning was acceptable. It's too bad * didn't threaten to veto on video the $87b alternate plan that would have been paid for... and the "for it before I voted against it" was the main killer, even though to the average C-Span viewer it's pretty common different versions and amendments of bills get different votes.

[secular_warrior]

5. Of course - that would've been the perfect position

I've said this before, the perfect position would've been AGAINST the IWR and FOR the funding.

Then the candidate could've come back and said "I voted against the war because the evidence wasn't there and still isn't, but once the president went in, I had to give the troops what they needed."

Snappy. Easily explained.

BTW, Kerry's position is also correct, it's just harder to explain.

They voted against it because they were behind in the polls to Dean, and could not fall further behind with the Democratic base. The strange thing is, I don't think they would have fallen behind further if they voted for the funding. I think Kerry would've won anyway. The polls showing Dean way ahead were WAY OFF. We now see this had a negative impact on the race because it ultimately had an impact on our nominee's positions. I feel fairly certain that the polls we are seeing now are also way off. I think something is wrong with the polls and we'll only find out after the election.

[Bullshot]

6. Bush/Cheney would have found something in that vote,

twisted it around and used it against Kerry just like they have on everything else Kerry has said and voted on.

[Ducks In A Row]

7. They'd pick another vote to hammer him on, or worse

something personal.

[dolstein]

8. Yes

It was certainly a stupid "general election" vote. The Bush campaign would still have accused him of being inconsistent on Iraq, and they still would have accused him of being a flip flopper. But at least we wouldn't have been sidetracked over this one issue, and we wouldn't have that the godawful "I actually voted for $87B before I voted against it" soundbyte.

[Nederland]

9. Yes

No doubt about it.