Kerry's Few Words on Iraq Are Too Many for G.O.P.

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/campaign/13kerry.html

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., May 12 - Trying to stay focused on health care and education, Senator John Kerry has spoken only sparingly this week on Iraq, but his words have been pointed. He renewed a longstanding call for Defense Secretary Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, said higher-ups must be held accountable for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and condemned the beheading of an American civilian.

Republicans have seized on every scrap, accusing him of politicizing the war.

"It's striking to see the ease with which John Kerry thrust an important moment for our country into the campaign's daily spin cycle," Marc Racicot, the chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign, told reporters in a conference call on Wednesday morning. Pointing to an e-mail campaign that urged Kerry supporters to sign a petition pushing Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster and donate to Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign, Mr. Racicot, the former governor of Montana, accused Mr. Kerry of "raw political opportunism."

Pressed repeatedly during his conference call to explain why discussion of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq was inappropriate - particularly when Republicans have made the war in Iraq a central campaign issue - Mr. Racicot said linking the prison scandal to fund-raising crossed a line. He took issue with Mr. Kerry's suggestion on Tuesday that the abuse reflects "America's overall arrogance in its policy," as well a statement by Mr. Kerry's friend and adviser Senator Edward M. Kennedy. "Shamefully,'' Mr. Kennedy said, "we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - U.S. management."

...more...

but *'s lies didn't "cross the line"? :puke:

[frank frankly]

1. hey, this is a decent headline and article given the NYTimes is Pravda

i think the media has started to turn...

[rocktivity]

2. As I wrote earlier today

There's nothing that the Bush regime would like to do more right now than "sic" the media on Kerry for "politicizing the war" by criticizing Georgie, or to declare his candidacy moot because he said something "supportive." But Kerry's been smart enough to keep his nose to the grass roots grindstone and not take the bait. Yes, he spoke out when his spouse was criticized, but who wouldn't? Allowing Georgie the full glare of the worldwide media spotlight as he sinks deeper into miserable failure is saving Kerry a lot of effort and campaign money!

:headbang:
rocknation

[RoyGBiv]

3. Politicizing the War

"Republicans have seized on every scrap, accusing him of politicizing the war."

Repeat this, over and over and over.

People keep wondering why Kerry doesn't come out with all guns blazing over Iraq. There's the reason. The Repukes want him to.

"If he is there tomorrow, I shall attack him."

"General, if he is there tomorrow, it is because he wants you to attack him...a good reason, in my estimation, for not doing so."

[Catch22Dem]

4. You have to politicize the war

First of all, with dickhead proclaiming himself as a "war president" every time he steps up to the mike, the repukes politicize the war. So, no responsible opposing party would just hand the war over to the repukes as a campaign issue. If you let them, they'll just tell you over and over how wonderful the war is going. Not so, and it's the opposition party's responsibility to call them on their bullshit!

[RoyGBiv]

6. I agree...

...but I think Kerry has to be very careful about how he does it. So far, I believe he's doing a fairly good job after a slow start to get his bearings and test the water.

[Voltaire99]

9. Couldn't disagree more with the assessment of Kerry on Iraq

It's not "fairly good" to call for 40,000 more troops. That's fairly rancid, actually.

Kerry's pipsqueak approach to the defining issue of our time is far from acceptable. He should be out denouncing the torture loudly, denouncing the illegal occupation, and calling for the troops to come home.

Instead, he's doing everything possible to avoid angering NASCAR.

[jobycom]

12. He's trying to get elected

That's the thing you do when you oppose what the incumbent is doing. You try to get elected so you can stop what is going on.

Do you think Kerry will stop Bush if he speaks out? Do you think he will win one single thing by speaking out? It would rally the Republicans and cost him the election, and win him nothing but the fickle admiration of a bunch of effete snobs, if he jumps the gun.

We all have the luxury of screaming our consciences. The last thing I want to see is a candidate with a real chance to do good throw away his chance by screaming irrationally. We saw that with Dean (and I don't mean his speech, he was lost before he made that). It's disgusting. Too friggin' many purists feeling all smug and superior watching Bush slaughter people overseas. I'd rather a candidate who smelt a little less clean who could actually get something done.

That was Nader's argument. "Better to elect the worst and let everything go wrong. That way we can rebuild it." Nice. Tell that to the kids of the Iraqi soldiers Bush's little war blew away. That number is pretty high. But hey, Nader stayed "pure." Piece of shit. I see no difference between him, and his supporters with that attitude, and the elitist Republican warmongers who let others go off and die in their place. NONE AT ALL. Both let others die so they can keep their hands clean and get their way. I'll have no part of that.

Kerry's doing fine. He's leading in polls, Bush is imploding, and Bush will have a lot of trouble turning it around. Kerry is where he needs to be. Bush is the one blowing it.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Well said....nothing to add. n/t

[The Zanti Regent]

16. Thank you Jobycom

Joby is right.

A lot of folks on this board seem to forget 1996, when the Whore Press was saying that Weld was going to swamp Kerry. They also praised Ross Perot for going around with Weld and saying the country needed him. A lot of folks though Kerry was finished.

WHERE IS SENATOR WELD?????????????????????????????

and

WHO WON THAT SENATE RACE IN 1996 and WHO WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT????

JOHN KERRY!

GO JOHN!

[crossroads]

17. Good thought!

Bush *is* having a meltdown. Kerry needs to stay out of the limelite now IMO.}(

[Old and In the Way]

19. Why is this point so friggen' hard for some people to understand?

We don't have a sympathetic media, we don't have Congress, we don't have the Supreme Court, we don't have the Presidency, we barely have a majority of Americans who agree with us...that vote.

Bush got elected because he moderated his agenda to appeal to the center. The far RW was pissed in that campaign, but they were well rewarded for their support.

So why don't the LW purists here understand these facts of political life? They either have no clue about Presidential politics or they really do know what their asking, because they're not LW purists in the least.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. The theory is understood.

However, this center that is being run to every four years, keeps moving ever rightward. The center that Nixon ran to is different than the center that Chimp ran to. Clinton ran to the center and co-opted many RW programs during his presidency. Chimp ran to the center and has eschewed the middle ground for 3 1/2 years. With Chimp & Co. governing from an ever extreme position, this "magic middle" keeps moving to the right. There's a point where one has to say, "Enough is enough." If being a "purist" obligates me to expect my party to stand for the values for which it has historically stood, count me in.

Additionally, it's my opinion that voters are less concerned about a candidate being middle-of-the-road than one expressing his/her vision powerfully enough to evoke it's intrinsic merit. Americans want a leader that is strong enough in his/her convictions that they will run the country and allow them to ignore politics for another four years. Here's a novel idea: instead of running to some mythical middle, how about *gasp* being honest about where you stand and being eloquent enough to have others want to stand there with you.

Finally, maybe running to the middle (which I contend is actually to the right) is why half the people don't vote. When given a choice between pro-business and super pro-business, why, as an individual whose issues aren't being addressed, would I opt into the system? I understand that running to the middle is conventional wisdom but how'd that work out in 2000 and 2002? The point being that if Kerry runs to the middle and co-opts part of the "centrist" message this will allow/force the Republicans to move more to the right in order to differentiate themselves. I see this cycle as self-defeating.

[Old and In the Way]

25. I hear this same "theory" all the time here.

Please provide proof that:

(1) Anyone from the leftside of the Democratic wing decided that the Democrats were too right in 2000 and 2002 and elected not to vote. We "won" the popular vote in 2000 and I'm quite suspicious of the results of 2002. Certainly no mandate for Republicans in 2002.

(2) Your contention that the non-voters were somehow complacent Democrats is also challenged. It is far more likely that these apolitical people buy the "we'll lower your taxes" argument that the Republicans keep broadcasting and then hear the Nader meme "there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats" which reinforces their decision about the futility of voting.

As far as Clinton being conservative in his policy making, yes he was for welfare reform....and I am not so sure that putting 20MM+ more Americans back into the workforce was such a bad thing...do you? IIRC, he tried to start the nation on a universal healthcare system, which the Republican majority defeated. In fact, for 6 of 8 years he had a Republican Congress that fought him tooth and nail on every progressive proposal, when they were not investigating him for murder, sex, losing money on real estate, etc.

So the question to you is, why have Americans been electing Republican majorities to Congress over the last decade? Is it because they are dormant liberals? Or because they are to the right of the average DUer? Actually, I think they are more liberal than they realize, but corporate media has been framing the choices through repetitive biased pro-Republican programming for a decade. The result is that a non-critical thinking majority who believe Republicans represent their interests better....when the reality is exactly the opposite. That is why Kerry is tailoring his message and rhetoric to appeal to these voters. Once elected (and he's obviously going to need a Democratic Congress to support our agenda), then he can once again prove that Democrats can deliver for the middle-class and move this country forward on a progressive vision for the future.

But he has got to get elected 1st.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. I agree with much of what you are saying.

So the question to you is, why have Americans been electing Republican majorities to Congress over the last decade? Is it because they are dormant liberals? Or because they are to the right of the average DUer? Actually, I think they are more liberal than they realize, but corporate media has been framing the choices through repetitive biased pro-Republican programming for a decade. The result is that a non-critical thinking majority who believe Republicans represent their interests better....when the reality is exactly the opposite. That is why Kerry is tailoring his message and rhetoric to appeal to these voters. Once elected (and he's obviously going to need a Democratic Congress to support our agenda), then he can once again prove that Democrats can deliver for the middle-class and move this country forward on a progressive vision for the future.

The ultimate question here is: Will Kerry, once elected, tack back to the left? I see no historical precedence for this. There is precedence for Repubs electioneering to the middle and tacking right. But not vice-versa. Who controlled Congress in 1992-4? What landmark Democratic programs were accomplished in those two years? Even more disturbing is Kerry's record over the last eight years. More hawkish (GW1 vs. GW2). More big business (NAFTA, TelCom). I expect Kerry to win and I expect a redux of Clinton, as opposed to a great progressive awakening. Better than Chimp? Absolutely.

So the question to you is, why have Americans been electing Republican majorities to Congress over the last decade?

1. Biased media. Although the Dems share some blame for being complacent and allowing it to happen (see TelCom Act, Fairness Doctrine).

2. Capitulation. Allowing the Pugs to frame the debate. E.g., cutting taxes. Instead of being forthright and explaining why a progreessive tax policy will actually benefit the average Joe by reducing other costs and how the opposite has resulted in the greatest transference of wealth in the history of the world, we get "We'll cut taxes, too!" The Repugs appeal to emotion. The Dems have to appeal to intellect. The facts are on our side. Supply-side is a provably failed policy. Attack it, don't capitualte to it.

3. Fear, money and the system. If, as we both apparently believe, America is more liberal than it's representation, why not run to the center-left? Because politics are funded by monied interests. Going left will alienate those sources of funding, or so says the old CW. Dems are more afraid of offending these monied interests than they are of offending the electorate. However, the recent primary has shown that small contributions can match, or better, said monied interests.

4. Blurring of the line. According to this theory, both parties run to the middle before an election. What I'm suggesting is that this "middle" has been moving rightward over the last 20 years. What's really happening is that Dems now stand where the Republican party stood 20 years ago. Repugs stand to the right of that. Enter Joe Blow. When looked at in the context of the last five presidential election cycles, is it any wonder that Joe has a problem differentiating the two parties? If the middle was a stationary point, the theory maintains it's integrity. The fact that it's not, invalidates it.

Solution: In the face of a decade of Pug congressional control, a decade of running to the middle, a decade of media bias, a decade of a monetary imbalance...DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT! Run to the left. Or at least, the center left.

[Old and In the Way]

36. I guess we will have to disagree.

Running to the Left accomplishes nothing but makes the left happy with rhetoric...it won't get him elected. He already has us (except for those foolish enough to think voting Nader will accomplish anything). The name of the game is getting the middle to vote for you. Luckily, Kerry understands this.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. A Pyrrhic victory?

Running to the left accomplishes nothing. OK, what does running to the right accomplish? I'm saying that the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party of 20 years ago. But hey, we've accomplished something! :party:


Thanks for the civil debate. Although I disagree, I'm not discounting the merits of your position. Ultimately, we'll know in 10-20 months. Again, thanks for the serious discourse.

[paulk]

28. Right on!

:toast:

[yardwork]

29. I agree.

Let Chimpy do his own dirty work. He's burying himself.

[0007]

You got it! Kerry is being a pip-squeak in the stricktest sense

Mr. Kerry Please tell junior to bring the troops home.

[Poiuyt]

5. It's a fucking political war!!!

Bush went into Iraq for political reasons and he seizes every opportunity to use it for HIS political gain. Wasn't Bush the first one to use images of coffins being carried off the 9/11 site? What an asshole!

[warrior1]

7. fuck them

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. That's it. 100%

I don't hear Kerry criticising Afghanistan, other than that the Iraq effort greatly undermined the former.

[The Shadow]

11. Sometimes Less is More

Apparently Kerry's pointed comments about current affairs are more than adequate. All one has do do is notice how Kerry has the repugs going nuts without hardly uttering a word.
Do not underestimate how well Kerry is doing based upon the slop thrown at us by the media every night, because the way I see it bushhole and company have been in serious damage control mode since the beginning of the new year and it ain't getting any better for them anytime soon.

But most of all the thing we need to do is keep the faith and remain actively engaged in our support... do not be swayed by BS "reporters" and other naysayers, as that is exactly their intent, to distract us with crap and demographic polls.

[crossroads]

18. Welcome to DU Shadow!

[calimary]

31. Yes, welcome! And you - and others here - DO make a good point.

I'm pretty much won over. And this past primary season backs that up. I remember when Kerry's campaign was DOA because so much attention and noise and razzamatazz was directed at Dean. I was (still am in many respects) a Dean suppporter myself, so I know I had a small hand in that. Kerry was believed to be finished, in disarray, on fumes, etc. And look where he is now? I must say I'm impressed by this. Maybe we have a tortoise and hare situation here. And bush and the republi-CONS represent the hare.

[Nlighten1]

10. Is this the right time to be focused on health care?

[RoyGBiv]

13. Yes. n/t

[yardwork]

30. Yes, and I will tell you why it is!

Health care is not just a "policy" to most Americans. It's a huge all-encompassing problem that they live with every day of their lives. People lie awake at night trying to figure out how to get health care for their kids, their spouses, and themselves.

It's a bigger issue in the day-to-day lives of most Americans than the war in Iraq, taxes, or even employment. In fact, a lot of the concerns over employment are due to health care concerns. It's the reason that the thousands of so-called new jobs aren't helpful - they are part-time or contract positions that don't offer health insurance.

This issue alone is a winning issue for Kerry AND the Democrats. It's something that the Repukes in Congress can't blame on Chimpy either. The Republicans in the House and Senate are to blame for ignoring this problem for the past eight years, ever since they destroyed Clinton's efforts to address it.

Health care access is a winning issue for all Democrats, and one that I hope every single one hammers at during this election season.

[scottxyz]

15. How dare Kerry comment on Iraq!

He's just running for President.

Who cares what he thinks about Iraq?

[Democat]

20. Republicans: Kerry doesn't have a plan - but if he does, he's politicizing

If Kerry doesn't say anything about Iraq, the Republicans slam him for not having a solution or a better idea than Bush.

If he does say anything aboout Iraq, they slam him for being political or critical of our great leader.

He should just tell them to fuck themselves and do what is right.

[kevinhnc]

21. Agreed...

From the WP article, Racicot the idiot proclaiming that Kerry called all 150,000 troops responsible. What a jerk, I hope America is seeing just how desperate and unscrupulous these guys are...

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22443-2004May12_2.html>

(snip)

Racicot, for instance, told reporters that Kerry suggested that 150,000 or so U.S. troops are "somehow universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a small number of American soldiers and contractors. Racicot made several variations of this charge. But Kerry never said this, or anything like it.

As evidence, Racicot pointed to the following quote Kerry made at a fundraiser on Tuesday: "What has happened is not just something that a few a privates or corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war, it's an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world."

What Racicot did not mention was that Kerry preceded this remark by saying, "I know that what happened over there is not the behavior of 99.9 percent of our troops."

(snip)

[union_maid]

22. Inept, bungling

That, I think should be the message. Opposing the war now is not exactly to the point. Almost no one seems to know what's going to happen. Former hawks are saying they think we may lose. The situation is "fluid" to borrow a favorite buzzword. I'm not worried about Kerry's policy. He'll do as well as anyone can in this mess. The message, however, should be simple - inept bunglers. It's a uniting, not a dividing, concept and it's nothing more nor less than the truth about this administration.

[blm]

23. Rove tells Repubs to run on the war and the press dubs him a genius.

I can't wait for the conventions when people can see Kerry through their own eyes.

[primavera]

26. Yawn

That's such a transparent attempt to shunt blame for the administration's policies away from itself, I can't believe even Americans would be stupid enough to fall for it.

[colonel odis]

27. people vote with their pocketbooks

it's still the economy, stupid. no matter how badly bush and his buds try to scare the crap out of us. tragic as iraq is, when dad loses his job the conversation around the dinner table is how the family's going to keep going.

i agree with the post-ers who said kerry should just keep quiet and let bush implode. the way things are going for the bush bunch, kerry won't even have to campaign.

[Mountainman]

32. Kerry is playing it just right, Bush is digging himself deeper and deeper

into a hole. There is nothing Kerry could do hurt Bush's election that could be worse than Bush is doing to himself.

Repubs first got all loaded up to trash Dean.

Then they found that they had to switch and attack Kerry.

They spent close to $70 million on attack ads and Kerry stays neck and neck with Bush.

Without attacking Bush in his ads, Kerry sits back and watches Bush's poll numbers go into the toilet.

What a great campaign! Kerry won't follow Rove's game plan.

[struggle4progress]

33. Related

Sen. John Kerry, breaking momentarily from his cautious approach to turmoil in Iraq, blasted President Bush on Wednesday for running an "extraordinarily mismanaged and ineptly prosecuted war" and strongly suggested Bush is partly to blame for abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.
"They dismiss the Geneva Conventions, starting in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, so that the status of prisoners both legal and moral becomes ambiguous at best," the senator from Massachusetts told radio host Don Imus.
In his most expansive comments on U.S. mistreatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, the presumptive Democratic nominee said this amounts to "major failures in command."
Asked if Kerry is assessing partial blame to Bush in the prison scandal, Rand Beers, a Kerry foreign policy adviser, said in an interview "undoubtedly that kind of ambiguity, yes, is a failure of leadership."
<more>
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2145518,00.html

[killbotfactory]

35. Repubs: How dare you mention we fucked up!

Darn those politics! What are you? A politician?

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 4:15:17PM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
7 hours,
44 minutes, and
43 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[callous taoboy]

39. Hmmmm?

:boring:

[sofa king]

40. Did anyone see Jamie Rubin fencing with Hannity?

Couple 'a nights ago. Hannity's first "question" was a smear against Kerry for "politicizing" the war. Rubin laughed at Hannity, saying roughly, "are you saying we have to shut up with we disagree with the conduct of the war?"

I really like that guy. Few people in politics are willing to condescend to idiots in public. Rubin has made a career out of it.