Playing "What if. . .?" Election 2004 Edition

[Dr Ron]

From LUTD--see original post for links:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1052

Playing "What if. . .?" Election 2004 Edition
9 June 2005

George Bush won reelection out of a combination of convincing voters he was keeping them safer against terrorism, a campaign based upon distorting Kerry's views and record, voter suppression, and mobilizing new voters from the religious right to offset the new Democratic voters.

There's also been speculation from the usual gang of Kerry bashers that if other things were different he would have won. This week there are the claims that if Kerry had signed Form 180 earlier the results would have been different. As we've discussed here, that would have changed nothing. The right wing noise machine did not care about the facts and would have continued the attack--as they are now doing despite the release of the military records. After all, if they had any concern for the truth there was already plenty of evidence released to prove that the charges were lies.

Another claim I've seen multiple times is that Kerry would have won if he had voted against the Iraq War Resolution. That is also unlikely to be the case.

The one thing which would have been different is that Kerry probably would have been the front runner for months and won the nomination with even less difficulty than he had, and Howard Dean would probably be an obscure former Governor of Vermont.

While voting yes on the IWR would have made it easier to win the nomination, it would have hurt rather than helped Kerry in the general election. Most voters, in contrast to bloggers, did not hold the vote against him. After all, most opponents of the war voted for Kerry, not Dean, once they had a clear look at both. Fortunately the majority of Democratic voters did not fall for the claims that a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. More voters agreed with Wesley Clark's interpretation that the vote was a poor litmus test than agreed with Howard Dean.

The IWR was a typical Rove trap which Kerry tried to avoid. Rove loves to place opponents in positions where they must chose between two bad options. We saw how they campaigned against a candidate who voted yes in falsely claiming Kerry had supported their decision to go to war.

It would have been even more to Bush's advantage if Kerry had voted no. At the time of the IWR vote, the resolution was not presented by Republicans as a vote to go to war. Just four days before the vote, George Bush stated in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002 that "war was not inevitable." He portrayed the vote not as one to go to war, but a vote which meant that "America speaks with one voice" against a foreign enemy who may have had weapons of mass destruction. (Of course we now know that Bush had intended to go to war regardless of what occured, but he would have never admitted this.)

A no vote would have been taken as not only a rejection of Bush's ultimate Iraq policy, but that the voter would not agree to defend American under any condition, even if threatened by WMD. The result would likely have been more like the last time a Democrat was seen as too far to the left during a controversial war, when Richard Nixon beat George McGovern in a landslide.

John Kerry attempted to avoid Rove's trap by both voting yes but fully explaining his vote in his Senate floor statement. Kerry had many similar anti-war statements such as a New York Times op ed piece, his Georgetown speech, and his call for regime change in Washington at the onset of the war. John Kerry made his opposition to George Bush's policies clear. This strategy probably would have worked even better if not for having been falsely attacked by some in his own party for having voted for the war. While this undoubtedly did hurt, the consequences of voting no would have been far worse.

[BlueIris]

1. You know what's strange? I've never really asked "what if?"

At least, not of the Dems or Kerry in 2004. Call me a deranged apologist, or a Kerry-loving amateur, but--I look at the things the Democrats generally and Kerry specifically are charged by their critics as having "needed to handle differently," "screwed up," "neglected" or worse and I don't think the alternative courses of action those critics have suggested would have worked any better. I'm actually satisfied with the job our side did, especially considering how rigged the game was.

[ginnyinWI]

2. you are absolutely right

Kerry has nothing to be ashamed of. It's the other side who ought to be hanging their heads in shame for the disgraceful way they campaigned through lies and smears. They knew they couldn't get elected on the facts. There was no one little thing that the election turned on. A lot of people were pre-disposed to voting in the incumbent, so they had an advantage coming out of the gate.

[whometense]

3. Don't you find it just bizarre

that they have no shame? I can't get used to it. And all those republicans voting for those hideous judges? Where are their consciences?

I know, that just sounds so quaint, doesn't it? Conscience. That Joe Klein piece TayTay quoted in the other thread? About how Kerry stumbles all over himself when he's trying to act like a pol, but is an orator when speaking from the heart? I know it makes me out of step and all, but that is what I want in a president. A man with a heart. A man with a f***ing conscience. A man who actually knows right from wrong. Imagine.

[TayTay]

4. I thought he ran a pretty good campaign

all things considered. I still think a lot of the problems with the campaign were systemic problems with the lack of a structure. (The Bill Bradley NYTimes article about summed it up.) I remember Kerry on the Jon Stewart Show last year saying that he basically had to go from 0 to running a $75 million corporation overnight and there were startup problems. We really need to fix this. It will bedevil any candidate we nominate.

I thought Kerry kicked ass started at the end of September. I was home (for some reasons or another I no longer remember) and saw the NYU speech live. It kicked ass. That was a full bore, take-no-prisoners ass-whipping of * and his wrong-headed decision to go to War. We all know that Kerry killed in the debates and carved little Georgie up into tiny little incomprehensible pieces.

I think Kerry 'lost' (and I do think there was fraud, look at the emerging corruption stories in the Toledo Blade, that is some serious shit that could take down the Ohio Rethug party) because the dissatisfaction with the * regime had not yet jelled. It is extremely difficult to get people to change the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. Kerry nearly did it. And he did not compromise his principles. I would give him another chance in a heartbeat.

[whometense]

5. Oh, well, of course.

So would I. And I still think he actually won. I think his past year's experience will be hugely important in 2008.

I was talking more of his innate tendencies. And Joe Klein falls well inside the category of the underestimators.

There were some d'oh moments in the campaign, but there were in Rove-the-genius's as well. I agree about the lack of structure. Still fuming over all those weak-kneed dem defenders on the talking head shows. There are a lot of dems who should be thinking hard about whether they could have managed to be better team players.

[TayTay]

duplicate post

dup due to my computer being petulant tonight. (Bad computer. bad)

[TayTay]

8. There was another great paragraph in that article

You know that Senator Kerry heard in 2003 that one of his crew from the Swift Boat days (I think it was Alstom, but I'm not sure) was having a hard time of it and was into substance abuse. (Alcohol.) Kerry got to hear about it and came to the guys rescue. He got him into immediate treatment (depression and suicide) and helped the guy get clean and back to life. This is the true definition of leaving no man behind.

Klein: "Kerry talks all the time about the lessons he learned in Vietnam but rarely about what he did there. The story of how he saved Green Beret Jim Rassmann from the Bay Hap River under fire in 1969 would never have been told if Rassmann hadn't offered to tell it -- dramatically, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. Years ago, three of the Vietnam combat veterans Kerry served with in the Senate -- John McCain, Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland -- told me something that Kerry had never even hinted at; that Kerry had come to their rescue on occasions when they had been publicly attacked. He organized Op-Ed pieces and television appearances to defend his colleagues; he wrote a letter during the 2000 South Carolina primary, signed by Vietnam combat veterans of both parties, calling on George W. Bush to stop associating with veterans' groups who said McCain had abandoned vets; when Kerrey was accused of participating in a massacre of civilians in Vietnam, Kerry called some mutual friends and had them hang out with Kerrey until the storm passed. "I just love the guy," Kerrey once told me."

Well, we all know how McCain paid Kerry back, but the other guys are still in his fan club. (McCain wants to be, but I think he has worn out his welcome.)

[ginnyinWI]

6. me too. A man with principles that he actually lives by.

It's almost like we are a couple of old fogies here, reminiscing about the good old days. And people like Kerry and Reid and others who believe in maintaining their integrity--it's like we are all outdated now and are ready to be put out to pasture.

Well I say we'd better NOT get used to it. There has to be a "silent majority" of people who, once they know what's going down in this administration will throw the bums out. I've got to believe that.

[whometense]

7. Yes. It's all we've got, really.

Looking at my kids gives me hope. I just wish we were handing them a better world right now.

On the other hand, if things get bad enough, who knows what might happen? Throw the bums out. ALL of them. I'd like to see how Snowe, Collins, and Chafee are going to explain their judicial votes to the people back home.

[karynnj]

9. Not bizarre, so much as intensely sad

There was a time when things were so much less polarized. This party line voting on everything is bizarre and seems to mean that they are either afraid to challenge Bush on anything or they may believe that they would undermine the President if he lost any vote. I have never seen this before. For example, how can any of them look themselves in the mirror after they make speeches advocating for people like Bolton?

I agree that Kerry is so much more an orator when speaking from the heart - but I think he was for most of the end of October. I really hope we will get a Kerry win in 2008 - although I would have been ok before last year with many of the candidates named, I now compare them to Kerry. I trust him because in addition to his competence, he has a heart and a conscience, both of which he uses.

[politicasista]

10. Nice post Karyn

:)