Ron Reagan on Hardball lists only Murtha and Feingold

[karynnj]

as the Democrats speaking out on Iraq. Scarborough says we have no spokesman on Iraq, foreign policy or domestic policy. He says Democrats think it dangerous to challange Bush.

They really are out to ignore Kerry.

[ProSense]

1. I'm going

to get it in GD and GD-P. I posted a Feingold thread in each. I'm tired of the bashing of all the other Democrats over this. Feingold offered his measure as an alternative to impeachment (it says so clearly in the statement from his press conference. People are trying to paint this as the best move ever and bashing all the other Democrats, who I believe, some of them anyway, want investigations to continue and determine the course of action based on what's found. The investigations might find other members of the admin and GOP acted illegally---it's not just about Bush.

[ginnyinWI]

2. how does he know what Democrats think

They keep saying it so many times so that people will believe that Dems are wimps with no message. This makes it an uphill battle, for sure, but it's got to be fought. Conventional wisdom says former candidates are out of the picture--another thing to be fought. It's amazing how often Kerry is the invisible, inaudible man when these discussions come up. :(

[Mass]

3. Because it is true we dont have one, except for Reed (RI).

Murtha is speaking on his own. Feingold has not been speaking on Iraq recently, but as he is in the news, this allows people like Ron Reagan, who are not exactly bright, to list him.

Kerry, IMO, has been way too silent on the war by himself. It was a pleasant surprise to read what he said this morning, but he had not really talked for months on this issue. We cant expect that the media will see him as speaking out if he does not make press conferences and floor speeches or PR on this issue. I think he has been in the game enough to understand this question.

It does not mean that he does not work to see things move. It does not mean that the people who understand these issues dont understand that (see the comment in the Globe article this morning).

We have to stop wringing our hands because he is not seen as a leader on an issue where he does not take the lead.

This is the same thing for the censure thing. If Kerry wanted to be seen as fully supporting the issue, as Boxer and Harkin do, he would have issued a PR, I imagine (or he needs to change his PR team, but I am told they are good). I have stopped jumping in threads to defend him on this issue, except if they are really unfair, because he obviously does not want to be seen as ahead of the pack on this.

I know it is frustrating; at least for me it is, but we cant do better than he does. If he wants to be seen as speaking out on Iraq, he will make the PR and press conferences that need to be made. Apparently, at this point, he has chosen to be a team player and stay silent, except on the issues of how this government is incompetent and a few other issues like the environment, veterans, and small businesses. I think we should respect his choice.

NOTE: I am talking about what Ron Reagan said, of course. Scarborough is a liar, anyway.

[karynnj]

4. Really good post

I had forgotten that his speech was so long ago and that the stuff we see from the SFRC is seen be a very small group of people. I was actually surprised at his comments this morning - as with that big a change I would have expected a speech where he had more control.

It may well be that he sees a huge openning between Feingold and Clinton - which he can fill very well. I see no contradiction in his office saying he's for it while he's not seeking to be a sponsor. I really don't see it as a bad position - he'll get no extra credit as a sponsor (It's already a Feingold branded action) but he will get the slime already coming at Feingold. It also might not have been handled well.

[Mass]

5. Thanks.

I agree with you . I have had the feeling for quite a while now that the good spot in this election is to be the compromise candidate between centrists and lefties. The two candidates that can fill this role are Hillary and Kerry. Kerry is more popular with the activists and the netroots, I think, and seen as being to the left of Hillary while not as leftist as Feingold, Kennedy, or Boxer (I am not sure Feingold is that leftist but he is seen this way; as for Hillary, who knows where she is?).

So, I think he is in a better position than some think.

[jenndar]

6. Here is what is driving me up the effing wall.

I worry that the media has put Democrats in a vicious cycle position. Basically, the current administration is responsible for this stupid war. There is no exit strategy, so the media looks for the Democrats to come up with one. Instead of pursuing a democratic platform, Democrats have to go on answering for the administrations incompetence. The media and the RW translate this into "Democrats have no plan." And - especially where JK is concerned - they seem to want to have things both ways, and this often results in arguments, coming from the left and the right, that are essentially "John Kerry is an unelectable bore, and why hasn't he saved us from our own Iraq policy yet?"

I really don't want to make excuses for the Senator, because I agree with you - he has some really valid ideas on Iraq, and he shouldn't be shy about them. I guess I'm just not that optimistic about how effective the media are willing to let him be.

[Mass]

7. I think it is his choice and that we should respect it.

He has chosen to be a team player for now, to focus on getting other Democrats elected by campaigning for them and, at least in public, not to intervene in these hot issues that some want to be silenced. I am sure he is active in the background, though. So, it is sure I'd like to hear him on these issues take more of a leadership role, but, if it is his choice not to do so, it should be respected, and if it is not this choice, sorry to tell you, he should not listen.

For the first question, there was an interesting article in the Nation about the conendrum Democrats are because of the media on Iraq.

Just a few parts

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/alterman

Iraq: The Democrats' Dilemma

Eric Alterman


A master narrative, once formed in the collective mind of the mainstream media, becomes impervious to interference from inconvenient reality. Today the political narrative demands that the Democrats be derided for their "disarray." Yes, George W. Bush is the most unpopular President since Nixon in the days before his forced resignation. In the most recent AP/Ipsos poll, nearly 70 percent of those questioned believe that the country is on the wrong track. The Bush domestic agenda is politically dead, and his Iraq adventure looks increasingly like it contains the seeds of a regional Armageddon. Yet according to the accepted story line, none of that matters. The Democrats' disarray on how to handle the war dominates the reporting of Adam Nagourney and Matt Bai in the New York Times, of Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington in the Washington Post, of Joe Klein in Time, of the smart boys who write ABC News's "The Note" and Slate, along with that of virtually everyone else charged with reporting on the topic.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding why, if it was the Administration that created the Iraq quagmire with its toxic combination of mendacity, incompetence and ideological obsession, it is somehow the responsibility of powerless Democrats to solve it. Given the right wing's stranglehold on both the political process and public discourse, Democrats cannot hope to address this problem or even have their public proposals treated fairly. Why then should they make themselves politically vulnerable by offering up a target for Rove and O'Reilly to torture, twist and otherwise pervert for the purpose of political assassination both in 2006 and again in 2008?

...

Then Alterman says something about Kerry that I have not yet heard, and that, if true, is bothering because it could give a very disturbing view on how the party works (and would be in agreement with Parry's article). Did anybody hear this story before?

As a result, John Kerry, who began with a genuinely antiwar critique of Bush's folly, was put in the position of having to find a way to support it, lest he compromise his ability to secure the support of his colleagues for his presidential candidacy two years later. According to sources I trust, Kerry actually gave an impassioned speech against the war to an internal Democratic gathering before reversing himself and backing it ...

Many on the left are demanding that the Democrats adopt an "out now" policy toward Iraq, but this, too, misunderstands the party's political problem. First off, it's not practical. Even if the leadership were to sign on to an out-now strategy, it has no enforcement mechanism to insure the compliance of those who disagree. The effect would undoubtedly be to reinforce the "disarray/these people can't be trusted to protect us" narrative that remains the Democrats' Achilles' heel. What's more, despite growing public support, a call for withdrawal would be treated in the conservative punditocracy as the equivalent of a call to "cut and run," and hence would open the entire "weak on defense" Pandora's box that almost always dooms Democrats in national elections. And for what? Does anyone truly believe that if the Democratic leadership calls for Bush to quit Iraq, it will actually happen?

...

[ProSense]

8. OK! That is completely made up.

I understand wanting to critique, but this is BS. Kerry never BACKED this war. That is not the same as trying to find a solution out of this catastrophe.

[Mass]

9. I guess my question should have been more

specific. I know Kerry did not vote for the war. If anything, listening to his speech before the vote should tell us that. I did not say so because I thought it was obvious that none of us believed he voted for the war.

This is not my question. I am not in politics in such high levels. Is it inconceivable that Kerry was against the resolution, then was convinced to back it (knowing he was not voting for the war), because of the potential implications for 02 and 04. I have read that once already, but I dont know these spheres and I dont know if strategists have such an influence that they could really convince him. What seems clear though, coming from people who work with him, is that he was unsure of his decision until the vote.

[karynnj]

10. I had heard a less specific comment

that Kerry had been the most eloquent, impassioned speaker against the war until he and others (Feinstein is the one I remember) were given a briefing by Powell. I think he was one of the Democrats who when rumours of the war leaked made many comments that the President shouldn't go to war without the support of the UN and the Congress. He also had a Sept 6 NYT editorial saying that.

I would argue that when Bush gave in and said he would go to the Congress and the UN - in that order and said that he needed Congressional support so he could say America spoke with one voice, Kerry had a very tough choice. It also sounds like Kerry took seriously the negotiated changes to the IWR which removed many reasons for going to war including some given later when there were no WMD, where Bush likely just wanted it passed. I think Kerry would disagree with the highlighted sentence - because I doubt he would agree it was a vote for war. (Could it be that Kerry voted for it to get some of those changes?)

There were articles that Tay (I think) posted about his decision where his staff spoke of how it was a yes, but or no, but vote and they said it was definately not political. (though I assume they would be unlikely to say otherwise.)

edited to correct embarrasingly bad grammar

[Mass]

12. Thanks for your answer. I guess my question should have been more

specific. I know Kerry did not vote for the war. If anything, listening to his speech before the vote should tell us that. I did not say so because I thought it was obvious that none of us believed he voted for the war.

My question was more about what, if anything, made him decide to vote YES. I have read several accounts that he was undecided until the last minute. Thanks for the hypothesis you gave. It is interesting.

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. To get the

Inspectors in there, to see if what was being told to him was true or not. I'm sorry but this makes me angry, you have to go back to what was happening then, not what has happened. There were 70% of the American people who agreed to get the Inspectors in there, the resolution was a good idea at that time, and it had very specific things to do and war was a last resort.

Kerry made one mistake he trusted a sitting president to do the right thing, my God the man wanted to be President and would want people to trust him to do the right thing.

There was one person who pushed the button for war, and yes there were some I would say mainly Republicans and the Liebermans' on the Dem side, but even they did not make the choice, one person did George W. Bush. When are people going to try to stop passing the blame around, and instead of badgering a certain few, how about badgering the SOB that caused all of this.

FUCK the lazy pundits that get off on this blame game, its about time they grew a spine and asked the questions over and over to the corrupt asshole in the WH.

:rant:

[Mass]

15. To be honest, it was not the subject of the article.

It was a poorly chosen example of how the media were making the pb impossible for the Democrats.

This said, I should have known better than to ask, sorry, and I will no more post any article including any criticism, as small as it is, of Senator Kerry.

[karynnj]

16. I think the comment is important to see

There have been media people who have more overtly said it was political calculation. I knew you didn't think JK would vote on this to improve his political position, I was just commenting on the full high lighted text. Given Kerry's whole political life, the most likely conclusion is that he would have been trying to find a way to lower the chance of war and to be working with other countries. It also reflects the value he places on diplomacy and negotiation - even when it is within the US government.

Pro-sense's post really makes sense and fits with his oft repeated claim that he voted for a process. That Bush did not follow the process. Explaining this was difficult because it is not simple and he wasn't helped when the RW was insisting that he was in sync with Bush and the LW was calling it a vote for war.

[fedupinBushcountry]

17. You asked a question

My question was more about what, if anything, made him decide to vote YES. I have read several accounts that he was undecided until the last minute. Thanks for the hypothesis you gave. It is interesting.

I gave you my opinion. Sorry.

[politicasista]

18. I think....

still he is going to have to defend the "voted for the war" memo. It has popped up the last couple of days. I can understand he wanted to vote for the inspectors, but sooner or later someone is going to sprang the line "well you voted for the war..." and Kerry is going to have to continue to answer to that.

I understand your rant.

[ProSense]

21. Kerry has been asked that and he has answered that

And the first response is it was not a vote for war. He has even been asked about it by Republicans and answered it. I really am not worried about Kerry answering that question. I'm more concerned about those who continue to intentionally distort it.

[politicasista]

25. That is what he is going to have to watch out for n/t

[ProSense]

26. Those people are only going to

impact the impressionable, people who are looking at Kerry for the first time. Frankly, given the situation in Iraq, I don't believe the IWR will not play into the election much. Solutions are going to be key, that's true now. Bush tried to bring it up to cover his ass late last year, and people didn't buy it.

[karynnj]

27. I have to agree a bit with Politicasistah

I heard Feingold on the Randi Rhodes show last Nov/Dec. He was saying that there was no doubt that this was a there were a remote possibility that there vote for war. That it was possible to see that some of the information was suspect. (In reality, there really was some uncertainty.) I've also gotten 2 mailings for Feingold that highlighted his "vote against the war" and the Patriot Act.

Much as I hate it. In politics, you use what you have to differenciate yourself. But, Kerry's has been suggesting exit plans and will likely be one of those saying we need to leave. I worry more when media people try to re-write 2004 saying Kerry's plan was close to Bush's (except Bush never said what his plan was.)

[ProSense]

28. People

are in a frenzy right now. They don't even realize that Feingold presented this as an alternative to impeachment, even though he states it explicitly in his statement. The third party, trolls and Republicans are taking advantage of this. When Bush, as he just did moments ago, offers to apologize, what is the recourse then? Frenzy is what happened during the election, people can go down that road or stay focused and try to deliver the facts on message, pundits especially. Because frenzy clouds perception. That's what's going on now.

If anyone goes back and look at a the series of votes leading up to the IWR, they will actually see almost every Senator voting for an amendment that if passed would have won them over to vote yes on the IWR. There were nuances. It's the same posturing that happened with the Patriot Act.

The other day, someone posted a position Feingold held regarding the war and framed it as a flip flop. If anyone thinks this is unique to Kerry, unique to anyone who voted yes on the IWR, and that those who voted against it or the Patriot act is going to be above this level of smear, they are in for a rude awakening.

[karynnj]

23. I think THAT is the sensitivity

that there is the always recurring "vote for the war". He spend an entire year, saying things like he voted for a "process". The primaries exasperated this as the LW called it a vote for war too. The other thing was that Kerry needed to say he was not unconditionally against war. (Probably why he used the last resort comment so often.)

The problem was the more important thing then was to prove he could come in and be CIC. Remember in the debates when Kerry said things like "wrong war" and that war should be a last resort. Bush, in one of his few strong moments, asked rhetorically if he thought the war was a mistake and how could he fight a war that he thought was a mistake? (this had to be a planned retort - it plays on Kerry's 71 words) It's really as stupid as saying that if someone knocked a glass of milk on the floor, no one else could clean it.

[kerrygoddess]

19. In a nutshell -

"FUCK the lazy pundits that get off on this blame game, its about time they grew a spine and asked the questions over and over to the corrupt asshole in the WH."

[politicasista]

20. They should have done that six years ago n/t

[jenndar]

22. Right.

The Senators who voted for war are accountable for that, and rightly so. But it's also unfair to give the media a pass for drumming up support for the war, and for failing to report on things like the NSA wiretapping in a timely fashion.

There's a larger narrative to why we are where we are than the "he voted this way, she voted that way, Senator X is a hawk, Senator Y is a coward, we forgive this guy for saying this, but not that guy for saying that" pattern we've allowed ourselves to slip into.

[karynnj]

24. The vote was really not that black or white

for all Senators. For many it was a vote for war, many Democrats were in favor of the war even after it started - Edwards was one who now sees it as a bad idea, Lieberman is still in favor. Harkin voted for it and rejected his vote in early (2003). Labeling Kerry a hawk defies all logic. His Ireland speech is not the speech of a hawk.

[ProSense]

13. You see a pattern

When you look at what Kerry said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=64180&mesg_id=64180

[jenndar]

11. My point is that there is so much spin

I feel uncomfortable saying "JK's decision is this" or "Jk's decision is that."

And thank you for the article.