What if Kerry had been a clearly anti-war candidate?

[Jokerman]

Poll question: What if Kerry had been a clearly anti-war candidate?

What if Kerry had taken a strong stance against the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Would it have changed your opinion of him as a candidate?

[CWebster]

1. He would've won. nt

[roseBudd]

2. He would not have won because the sheeple are scared shitless

[MisterLiberal]

7. Easily!

Most of my friends who aren't as politically savvy as most of us are were depressed because they kept hearing Nader say Kerry and Bush were pretty much the same candidate.

And if he'd just stuck with his campaign against the war, it would have robbed the Repukes of their stupid flipflop ads.

Better to stick to your guns. That's leadership!

[Guaranteed]

31. ABSOLUTELY. And I would have probably supported him before Dean. nt

[yurbud]

3. He'd have to frame it in an fiesty way and flat out call Bush a liar

otherwise he would fall into that "nurturer" trap the GOP has set up.

[xultar]

4. You can't be an anti war candidate and win. Why because the nation

needs to know that a President will take action when necessary.

Anti-War can't win. Anti-Iraq war yes. but Anti-War as a platform no.

[IrateCitizen]

6. The poll question is regarding "anti-Iraq war"...

If you read closely, you will note that the OP is asking about if Kerry would have been more forcefully against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[xultar]

22. Could he be forcefully for it since he voted for it?

I read the post but I was adding my own Flava too.

IS that o.k.?

[IrateCitizen]

23. Sure. I was simply trying to clarify what I perceived to be...

... a misunderstanding of the initial question asked. You just appeared to be arguing in favor of something that simply mirrored the stance of the OP.

Didn't mean at all to offend, or to constrain the parameters of debate.

[xultar]

24. No offense taken. n/t

[CWebster]

14. That is such a load of crap

We all are expected to hold up this farce because we need to shelter the American voter from the truth instead of laying it out for them to view?

The truth is we invaded another country and caused death and destruction--not based on faulty intelligence, but on deliberately manipulated intelligence to support a deception.

So, we have to prove that we too, are just as criminal?

[lyonn]

35. Amen

And Kerry and all those that voted that day to give Bush the go-ahead for war lost my respect and that included Hilary. I thought she was tough and smart. I thought that maybe they knew more than me, hoped that anyway. Well I was wrong. The Dems that voted yes apparently didn't know more than the public and so many of us had serious doubts about giving Bush that much authority. Hell, the inspectors were doing their job and told the world that Iraq was cooperating. Bush couldn't wait, afterall he had our whole military gathered there at Saddam's doorstep. The plans had been made. Sorry, I'm rambling.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. George McGovern n/t

[IrateCitizen]

5. Kerry's biggest misstep, IMHO...

I sincerely believe that Kerry's NOT coming down on the side of the occupation of Iraq as being immoral and unjust was one of his biggest campaign missteps. As a result of his extreme "caution" on this issue, there was no real debate as to the legitimacy of the invasion and occupation in the first place. This, in turn, ceded a lot of advantage to Bush on National Security, since Kerry wasn't so much condemning the decisions that Bush made as he was simply promising to "do the same, but better".

Would an anti-war Kerry have won? I really can't say. But I do know that America is much worse off for the complete lack of dialogue the 2004 campaign gave us over the basic legitimacy of the debacle called Iraq.

[JoshK]

16. Avoiding a real dialogue on the war was the PURPOSE of

nominating a figure like Kerry, in the eyes of the party powerbrokers. They did not want the spotlight placed on this matter, because they recognized that such attention unavoidably risked revealing the Bush government as war criminals, in the eyes of the public.

It's much the same phenomenon as the failure to seriously fight for Gore in the 2000 recount -- the thinking among party elders is, "Better to accept a setback for the party, than risk seriously discrediting the entire US political system."

The Dem Party elites are entirely in synch with the corporate consensus, which favored the war. They saw that nominating Dean would make the war the central issue, and that the debate would be fiery and explosive. They couldn't risk this, & thus, together with the media, destroyed the Dean candidacy by portraying him as a "far left lunatic." I'm not personally that enamored of Dean, but still believe this was the thinking behind his being stilletoed in the weeks before Iowa.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Thanks for highlighting these important facts, JoshK

You are absolutely right in your analysis, IMHO. I was simply trying to answer the more direct question at hand. But I can't disagree with anything you're saying here.

BTW -- welcome to DU, even if it is a bit late. I haven't seen you around here before, and if this post is indicative of what I'll see, I have to say I like the way you think. :D

[JoshK]

28. Hey, thanks!

That's very nice of you! :hi:

[lyonn]

36. Welcome and good post

[WI_DEM]

8. I think if his position on Iraq was clearer he would have won

the election.

[ramapo]

9. He would've lost big

America loves war.

[gottaB]

10. He'd have been the perfect candidate if only he'd said something like

"Wrong war, Wrong place, Wrong time,"

[Jokerman]

15. And stuck to that position.

Instead he hedged his bets and * beat him over the head with it.

[liberal N proud]

11. You can't change the fact that the election was stolen again

[pstans]

12. I voted for he would have gotten less support

It doesn't matter if you support the war or not, the fact is that we are in Iraq now and we will be there until things are fixed. I think the majority of people realize that we can't pack up everything and bring everyone home tomorrow.

[stopbush]

13. You're asking Kerry to take a position that he didn't support.

It was clear to me that Kerry was NOT against the war. I still voted for him.

You may as well ask if * was against the war.

[Jokerman]

17. A hypothetical question, to be sure.

I voted for him as well but my theory is that an anti-war stance would have gained him more votes than it would have lost.

[AntiCoup2K4]

19. He might have had a better chance except for one thing....

...the DLC would have never allowed him to be nominated if he were anti-war.

[zulchzulu]

20. Some clues on what the Right did to actually make Kerry "anti-war"

In case you were asleep, the Right used Kerry's stances as an anti-war candidate who voted against the first Gulf War as well as used his votes against weapons systems (all done with the usual deceptive tirades) to paint him as "anti-war".

The Swifties were more aligned with thinking that Kerry WAS an anti-war protestor when he came back in 1971 after serving in Vietnam.

I know the recent Kerry-bashing parlor talk seems to be under the illusion (as Soros mispointed out) that if Kerry was more 'anti-war", he would have won.

Again, this notion shows that some people haven't done their homework on the issue and are shooting from the hip with more Monday Morning Quarterback Myths.

[IrateCitizen]

21. The problem in all of this was a lack of dialogue...

Kerry's detractors painted him as "anti-war". But, that was undoubtedly even WORSE than if Kerry had actually BEEN anti-war, because there was no accompanying dialogue. Rather, we got continual pronouncements from the Kerry camp as to how he would simply prosecute the war "better" than Bush, without seriously taking issue with Bush's decisions.

Would he have won as an anti-war candidate? I really don't know. But I do know that if he had run as one, he would have forced these issues during the debates, therefore forcing the press to cover them. The American public might actually have had a debate over the basic concept of legitimacy surrounding the invasion of Iraq. But Kerry's stance made certain that didn't happen -- and in the long run, it only served to further legitimize and solidify the militarist ideology that got us into this mess in the first place.

Sure, Kerry might have lost if he had run as anti-war, but I think that America would actually be better off than it is now, after he lost while running as another pro-militarism candidate.

[Jokerman]

26. Not asleep, nor bashing anyone.

Although I think you hit on big part of the problem.

As they often do, the right set the terms of debate by portraying Kerry as anti-war when he wasn't. The pro-war crowd bought it but the anti-war crowd didn't. I think he would have done better by writing off the pro-war vote and going after the anti-war people who felt they had no viable option.

Any quarterback who isn't interested in WHY he lost the last game isn't likely to win the next.

[zulchzulu]

34. My point is that Kerry was pro-war to some and anti-war to others

Kerry was not "pro-war". He was and had a proven record as an anti-war person who in fact knew about war.

Those that considered him "pro-war" hadn't an inkling about what his position was with the IWR. It was NOT "pro-war" as they mythically inflame. It was "Pro-UN".

As for his other votes that would have made anyone who was "anti-war" and had some level of intelligent discourse, they would have seen his heady yet understandable positions on various war and defense votes and sided with him as an "anti-war" candidate.

It's of no use trying to explain the complexities of these issues with people who refuse to sit down and do a little homework.

The pithy notion that Kerry would have been "more acceptable" to the anti-war crowd if he had somehow come across as someone like Dean (who actually is fairly hawkish) is silly. I've seen the miles of blogs from people who refused to consider Kerry as "anti-war" (which he is) and would rather bash him and call him Bush-Lite and other far left wacky parlor talk favorites.

The whole notion he would have been "more electable" as an "anti-war" candidate is utter rubbish.

[Jokerman]

41. Try READING my post before spewing insults.

I have never labeled Kerry as “pro-war” or called him “bush-lite” and I am quite capable of intelligent discourse without resorting to insults.

Maybe Kerry is anti-war but, in my opinion, he played this down during the campaign in a futile attempt to keep from being labeled as weak on national security. To the far right, anything short of “kill them all and let god sort it out” is considered weak on security so he was wasting his time. Those people weren’t going to vote for him anyway.

My point is that had Kerry taken a clear stance during the campaign against the reckless use of force, maybe those who engage in “far left wacky parlor talk” would have seen him as something more than “bush-lite”.

[sandnsea]

25. "cut and run"

He lost because people didn't trust him to fight terrorism and they had the perception he'd abandon Iraq regardless of the consequences. I don't see how in the world he could have done better promoting an immediate end to the war. Not to mention he was against Bush invading anyway, but nobody around here ever pays attention to what he actually says. Maybe if people would have supported his position that Bush made catastrophic error after error with Iraq and that we needed a change in order to get it right so that we could bring the troops home, he would have done better. But nooooo, that was just too confusing for the left. Even though the left generally doesn't support an abrupt withdrawal anyway.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=300

[CWebster]

27. The advantage would've been

that he could've potentially spearheaded the backlash against Bush.

[cindyw]

29. Kerry could have been Jesus himself and Bush still would have won.

They cheated and would have cheated no matter what Kerry did or who he was.

[seito]

33. lol

[AP]

30. He would have lost so long as people were only thinking about war.

So long as the election was run mostly on the war being the most important issue, Republicans had an advantage.

The best thing to do would have been to flip the issue the way RFK did. Rather than talk about war in terms of war, we should have talked about the bigger picture of what was going wrong and then fit the war within that framework. The bigger problem is the polarization of wealth and opportunity, the assault on work, and the disappearance of the middle class.

[LittleClarkie]

32. More support from WHO? The right or the left?

Would he have been less ABB?

Might have won some on the left, might have lost some closer to the middle and near right.

It would have depended on his reasons and how intelligent they were, as opposed to sounding like he was just taking the position to get votes.

[marcologico]

37. Kerry was unmistakably AGAINST the Iraq war and if you'd watched the 3rd

presidential debate (or any of them) you'd know that.

Incidentally Dean heartily endorsed the "capture" of Saddam along with all past, present, and future U.S. "defensive" military operations. Said the Doc:

"During the past dozen years, I have supported U.S. military action to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, to stop Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo, to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda from control in Afghanistan. As President, I will never hesitate to deploy our armed forces to defend our country and its allies, and to protect our national interests."

Source: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

So don't tell me Dean was any more "anti-war" than Kerry, blog-o-ganda notwithstanding.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Deans not anti-war. He's anti Iraq War

John Kerry kept equivocatng up until the last month of the campaign, and when he finally went ALL OUT against the war, his numbers spiked. Dean kept the flame alive for him on the campaign trail until he could make his advisors see the light.

But because Dean did it , I'm sure there was something bad about it to some folks.

I'm sure some folks have a problem with taking the country back as well. Most of them however are corporate lobbyists and compensated astroturfers.

[marcologico]

40. Their positions are identical based on Dean's own "policy" statements.

Dean's anti-Iraq war line is pure opportunistic baseless smear, fanned into "flame" by his legion of paid flacks. Now who could they be?