TNR to Kerry : We implore You. No. Please. Stop.

[jefferson_dem]

He's back. Actually, he never even left. John Kerry, according to reports yesterday in The Boston Globe and The Washington Post, plans to have a prominent role in the Democratic Party. Apparently he's contemplating a political action committee and think-tank to help define the party's future. And, according to those around him, he's also considering another presidential run in 2008.

Our reaction to this is ... how to put it? Well, here goes: No. Please. Stop.

If the election results somehow failed to make this clear, we'd like to remind Senator Kerry that he is not an effective communicator. He tends to blather on, circling round and round his point without coming close to it. He regularly utters phrases --"global test," "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it"--that play directly into his opponents' hands. And he projects the image of an out-of-touch patrician that is precisely the opposite of what the Democratic Party needs.

<SNIP>

In a sense, the fault for Kerry's delusions of grandeur lies with all who supported him. Democrats have a famous tendency toward backbiting against their defeated nominees. This year, they by and large declined to engage in the traditional recriminations. This may be the humane approach, but it's not terribly honest. There have been plenty of nominees who have taken unfair blame for their losses. (Could, say, Walter Mondale have really done anything better in 1984?) Kerry is extremely lucky that he happened upon the nomination in a year when the party had set aside its traditional ideological feuding and, as a result, he mostly avoided suffering the indignities heaped upon his predecessors. The truth, however, is that he deserves it.

If the Democratic Party is going to get off its back, it needs spokesmen who can clearly explain its positions without leaving even its own partisans bored or confused. It needs someone who can connect with the economic and moral values of the middle class. And it needs to be able to discuss foreign policy without invoking the word "alliances" like some kind of irrepressible verbal tic. The longer Kerry overstays his welcome, the harder it will be for such spokesmen to emerge.

<SNIP>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=editorial111004

[MsTryska]

1. I like that he's gonna start a PAC and a thinktank.

this is the sort fo stuff we need.

and if he makes it to the nomination again next time around more power to him. i'd gladly vote for him.

[thedailyshow]

2. what's the name of the think tank that he's starting?

[MsTryska]

10. Don't know yet. I'm taking it

from the first paragraph of the article uptop.

the more thinktanks the merrier imo.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi thedailyshow!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[thedailyshow]

30. thanks!

:hi:

[Larkspur]

6. Kerry stealing another one of Howard Dean's ideas

Dean set up his PAC within weeks of dropping out of the Primaries and has been focusing on rebuilding the Dem Party from the ground up.

Kerry hasn't a clue where the grassroots are or what direction the Party needs to take. He's clueless, and should just head into retirement.

[MsTryska]

9. I disagree. I like Kerry.

and he's far from clueless. if you truly believe that, you've been duped by the Right Wing.

[Dookus]

13. yes

Dean invented the PAC :eyes:

[sangh0]

20. Dean's loss in Iowa was due to elevtronic voting

even though Iowa has a CAUCUS system, and no machines were used unless someone brought an abacus along with them.

[Larkspur]

23. Kerry is an original thinger?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Not!

[leyton]

18. Yes, only Dean is allowed to start think tanks.

John Kerry knows nothing about anything and therefore we should make him move to Siberia.

[sangh0]

3. I wonder if TNR ever listened to Kerry

like at the debates or the Dem convention. Or maybe they just like to repeat RNC points about how boring Kerry is.

[xultar]

4. What is it why can't people who've overstayed their welcome go off into

the effin sunset,
Kerry = BUH Bye
Mcauliff = BUH bye
B Clinton = BUH Bye
Gore = BUH Bye

And there are plenty of others that need to get to packin!

[eataTREE]

8. Leaving us with.... who, exactly?

[Redleg]

12. Ralph Nader, of course.

LOL

[Stocat]

5. I don't agree with the article at all

What we don't have is a steady leadership. Everytime we have an election we have massive turnaround in the leadership. Republicans realized this was a bad thing. They developed a system to maintain their power structure no matter who is in charge. We need to do the same.

[kostya]

7. How is Bob Shrum managing to deflect blame? Isn't he like

0 for 8 now?

[KurtNYC]

15. Yes - would love to get him in a poker game

[Leilani]

17. He should be exiled to a red state

for the rest of his life...how about Utah?

[Redleg]

11. The New Republic is more like the "New Republican."

They long ago decided that they would spend as much time criticizing Dems over trivial chickenshit than on attacking Repubs on serious stuff.

[Metrix]

19. You beat me to it

Exactly what I was thinking.

[sangh0]

22. Right, Kerry starts a PAC = Big problem

bush* starts a war = Did you say something?

[jefferson_dem]

25. LOL! That's right on. For the record, i posted this article as a polemic

to spark debate about "where from here" for our party. TNR effectively plays it's role here as an igniter.

Their particular position on Kerry, Dean, and the others should not be celebrated for anything beyond that, in my opinion. The editors' history of shallow nit-picky critiques and, more importantly, their manic equivocations on the war obstruct any shred of credibility on these matters.

[sangh0]

27. "TNR effectively plays it's role here as an igniter"

for a really big shit-bomb

[jefferson_dem]

29. Do you believe this discussion is counter-productive?

I would argue that, unlike conservative kook-aid slurping repukes, our partry is well-served with a little self-examination, a little constructive debate, about what we stand for and who should lead us where we want to go. That's what makes us...progressives, liberals...Democrats!

[Redleg]

32. It can be useful but often isn't.

As we can often see at DU, constructive controversy can be destroyed when we call each other names or condescend to others. It may be better to avoid these discussions when we are experiencing these intense negative emotions from losing the election.

[Kurovski]

14. This from a mag that scorned Howard Dean at every turn:

"If the Democratic Party is going to get off its back, it needs spokesmen who can clearly explain its positions without leaving even its own partisans bored or confused"

They also agreed with Bush's Iraq invasion, and later said "oops!, sorry, we made a mistake!"

But there was plenty of evidence that we knew it would be a mistake.

As a citizen without well-educated reporters on my payroll, I knew, as did DUers: <http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/13_path.html>

It will be some time before I jump on board any TNR bandwagons.

[Leilani]

16. What a Joke!!!

He ran a lousy, miserable campaign.

The reason the election was so close was Bush hatred.

Dems MUST do better next time.

[Kurovski]

21. If "Bush hatred" lost the election for Kerry

Then how is it "Clinton hatred" "won" the election for Bush in 2000?

I'll tell you how, and it's only slightly more logical than your view: both elections were stolen.

[fwiff]

36. I think he ran a good, strong campaign

And people DID buy into Bush's exploitation of their own hatred.

I like Kerry. He is smart, conscientious and if he wants to start a PAC and think tank, why not? Why should anyone have exclusive rights to starting one? Everyone brings their own ideas to the table, and who's to say which ideas are 'better'.
If Dean was the first to talk about it, great. I hope he does. He is also smart and has a great spark.
The more good people working toward strengthening the party, the better.

[union_maid]

26. I think it's great

We need it and I'm glad Kerry is considering ways to approach the situation we've got in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Who the fuck are the GOP to call anyone "not an effective communicator"?

At least Kerry can make it through a coherent sentence without hurting himself. Not to mention a bag of pretzels.

[Redleg]

31. LOL. To Repubs, black is white and 2 plus 2 equals 5.

And their ignorant followers believe them.

[liberalpragmatist]

33. DISAGREE Completely!

Kerry has won 56,000,000. He IS the shadow President. He should act like him.

Particularly on defense and foreign policy, Kerry was making progress. While it's true we need to reframe the "moral values" issue to our advantage and making an explicit appeal based on a common theme like "responsibility," we absolutely NEED to be credible on defense and foreign policy. Bush heavily won the "terrorism" vote. Kerry tried valiantly, but you can't overcome perceptions that have taken 40 years to form in a matter or 6 months. Kerry should become the foremost Democrat on defense and foreign policy, criticizing Bush everytime he screw up.

If he does a great job at that and if the Democratic Party is on the upswing by '08, he deserves another shot. Then it's up to primary voters.

Besides, I could care less what TNR editorial board thinks. They're relentlessly harsh on ALL Democrats. Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief wrote a dispicable hit-piece on Kerry right before the election.

[Party_like_its_1984]

34. Bad Kerry! No!

I think that he should return to his prosecutorial roots and connect the dots in the incredible cesspool of BushCo corruption...

How about prosecuting the Valery Plame leaker for starters!!

[SF Bay Area Dem]

35. I will consider giving him another shot

Kerry impressed me. I respect him. Some of these posts from people who are pissed at him seem to me have been influenced by the 500 million spent on ads by chim chim's handlers. It is hard to win when the deck is stacked against you from the beginning.