Does anyone know exactly why Martin Peretz despises Kerry

[whometense]

to the degree he does??

Article here: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070115&s=diarist011507

He gets a lot right about HRC, in my opinion, but his one comment about Kerry is loathesome. I assume it has something to do with Israel (which is Peretz's guiding issue), but does anyone know any back story on this? I also assume, since he's editor-in-chief of The New Republic, that his personal feelings about Kerry were behind the magazine's dismissiveness of Kerry's candidacy in 2004.

Obviously, TNR isn't a major mover of public opinion, since with everything they threw at Kerry he still won the nomination. But I would like to know where it is coming from, if anyone knows anything.

[ProSense]

1. I think it has something to do with Kerry's position on Iraq

But Peretz is obsessed with Kerry:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=13168

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=20887

[whometense]

2. I really think it goes back long before Iraq,

though I agree with you that erry's position on Iraq is sure to piss him off.

[JI7]

3. the TNR didn't even consider Kerry as a serious candidate in 2004

i think they did pieces on Kucinich and Sharpton even but not Kerry.

if it's TNR i always know it will be anti Kerry. fuck them all.

[Mass]

4. Peretz is very much an hawk, and considers that Kerry is too much of a dove for him.

I think he considers that people like Kerry and other Vietnam protesters are responsible for the lack of credibility of the Dems in defense, and probably loathed the fact that Kerry and Harkin went to Nicaragua when they were freshly elected.

[karynnj]

5. I had read that he disliked Kerry even in the 70s anti-war movement

I haven't found anything by googling though. I did find something interesting though - which was an article on Peretz and Cookie Roberts and their stupid idea that being anti-war would hurt the Democrats in 2006. They were living in fear of a return to the 60s. (I disagree with the author that a super anti-war Kerry could have won. He likely got every anti-war vote and many that were pro-war but agreed it was badly managed. I don't get where the more votes would have come from.) This does show that Peretz is a committed neo-con.

Here is a link to that:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/07/peretz/index.html

More interesting - but not about Peretz was an article in response to that one. What is interesting is that with people's eyes open to the wrongs done by Bush et al the problem the author sees that Kerry had in explaining the common thread of his war and anti-war activities in 2004 will be easily resolved. Adding the links of fighting the Reagan administration's illegal actions in Central America and BCCI shows that Kerry continued the fight.
Unlike the author, I think Kerry did connect the motivation in his acceptance speech, on his web site,and in Going Up River and Tour of Duty - he explained both as service to his country and its values. I think that he can be more explicit now.

Here are the 2 paragraphs about Kerry:

"The Kerry campaign, with it's attempt to celebrate the candidate's war record while studiously ignoring his service in the trenches of the anti-war movement, is a prime example. It seems impossible that anyone with a modicum of political sense wouldn't have understood that this was a recipe for disaster. By failing to identify the values that led him into combat service as being the same values that motivated his antiwar activism, Kerry created a perceptual dichotomy that was quickly expoited by the GOP. Kerry could either be Rambo or he could be Jane Fonda's boyfriend. He could not be both.

People tend to put this colosal blunder down to the personal failings of the candidate. There's truth in this but it isn't the whole truth.

The main reason for this failure lies in the fact that Kerry could not draw such connections without reviving the critique of the reactionary imperial ambitions which underlay them. Of course, the unrestrained use of military force in pursuit of such ambitions is the raison d'etre of the Neo-Con theology. Raising a critique of so fundamental an aspect of the Neo-Con project in the context of a Presidential Campaign was something the aparatchiks were'nt going to sign off on."


http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/07/peretz/permalink/9067c203848421db77379ac0b00b93ac.html

[JI7]

6. that pretty much says it all

if it was just about thinking Kerry was a bad politician or couldn't win, well, you wouldn't go to such lengths as these people do to not just criticize him but be so hateful. and act as he if wronged them in some way.

and being neocons he of course "wronged" them by going against what they stand for. he represents everything that is opposed to what they want. you CAN be a soldier and anti war. you CAN be willing to fight for your country but when you see something is wrong be on the right side of fixing it.

[karynnj]

7. I thought the 2 articles were interesting

I also think though that even in 2008, you could not say the stuff in the last paragraph and have more than 10% of the population understand you - much less follow you.

You summed it up nicely that Kerry really is 180 degrees away from a neo-con like Peretz (or Dr Rice at this point). He is using all his intelligence and eloquence against what they believe in. We love him for it - they hate him for it. It does mean he's effective or he would generate neither emotion.

[JI7]

9. yes

i think they wish he would fit their stereotype of the anti war protestor who goes out there and just repeats some slogans. or be like the Tom Hayden bunch in the 1968 protest. these things turn off people.

but instead he is out there making arguments in a reasonable and calm but strong manner. JK as the young soldier testifying in front of the SFRC is very much like JK the SEnator who is now on the SFRC but is the one asking questions. his manner is still the same and convincing for those who hear him.

[karynnj]

8. Here's a cool article trashing Peretz's editorial after the election loss

His comments are way better than any I could have written - and yeah, Peretz hates Kerry. (I really don't get how he says Kerry was no ones choice till late in the primaries - the numbers don't back Peretz up.0
http://www.flakmag.com/opinion/shredder21.html

(This has nothing to do with Peretz - other than a link to the article skewered above, but it is an extremely interesting defense of Kerry as a candidate by a writer from the Weekly Standard - soon after the election. It is a far fairer view than most liberal analyses.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/900nmdbr.asp )

[sandnsea]

10. Ugly, speculative gossip

That's all that entire piece is. I don't even like Hillary and that piece is a complete pile of shit. I do not know who these people think they are. Bill & Hil don't have poor friends, but Al & Tipper do. Oh puhleeze. Bill gives speeches nobody reports on? Well so did Al Gore until he turned his presentation into a movie. He just pulls random thoughts out of his ass and then people cluck cluck cluck and decide it's true because it's fun to repeat, not because there's fact to any of it.