Kerry Consulting With Tony Blair

[liberalpragmatist]

According to Ron Brownstein of the LA Times:



Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lashed Bush's record on healthcare in a speech one week after the president's second inauguration. Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic nominee, gave his first speech criticizing Bush more than one year after Bush's 2001 inauguration.

Kerry is assuming a day-to-day opposition role unprecedented for recent presidential losers. He has even conferred with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who initially led the Labor Party when it was a minority in Parliament, on how to build an opposition party.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems11feb11,1,6198357.column?coll=la-utilities-politics

Whatever you think of Blair, he is a good politician and he knows how to maximize the governing party's weaknesses. Plus, I generally favor the British oppositional model in parliament to the US model. I think it's good Kerry's doing this.

[applegrove]

1. Just the fact the Prime Minister cannot dodge questions for more

than a few days is gold. I never knew how important that was - until Bushoid!!

[Withywindle]

2. It makes me so envious to watch Parliament grilling Blair!

Damn, can you imagine if our President had to face that?

Well, OUR President could handle it with grace I'm sure. Kerry, that is.

[JI7]

3. it actually seems like something Kerry would love

of course our system is different and part of the reason they can do that to Blair is because he isn't elected directly by the people but rather by the other parliament members of which he is a part of.

the president here is elected independent of congress.

it's actually the media who should be doing the job but we know the problem with the media in this country.

[karynnj]

7. Agree that Kerry would love that kind of give and take

its the natural extension of debating - which he excels at.

I think if we had a tradition where the President had to regularly partake in this type of Q&A, even though it doesn't flow as naturally out of our form of government, it would greatly influence the type of people who could be President. Kerry's natural ability and love of discussing issues would have been an even bigger plus for him then it was. (Conjecture: After years of having pr oven himself to be one of the more compelling voices from the Senate asking well formulated, eloquent questions, Kerry would have been known to far more people when he did run.) Clinton and JFK would have been masters at this as well. Nixon would have been knowledgeable, but possibly his nastiness would show.

GWB would probably not have even made it to the nomination. Rather than the current wisdom that it is hard for a Senator to win, previous experience as a Senator would probably be the best preparation. It would enhance the likelihood of people who have really taken the time to become experts on the issues facing the country, although, human nature being what it is, a Reagan, who would confidently answer all questions in a positive, cheerful, appealing way could still win. It would be harder as the wrong answers would be immediately questioned.

Looking back at the nonsense I've written, I wonder if in trying to look at the impact, I have inadvertently brought in my own biases (I basically like most Democrats) in figuring out who would be hurt vs who would be helped.

Any conjectures anyone?

[JI7]

14. maybe some biases, but

but i think even if Republicans benefit it would be some of the better ones. so even if they get into higher office or more power as a result we would still be far better off with those type of Republicans than someone like Bush.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. I remember in the election cycle this past time

Kerry actually wanted more debates but of course Bush didn't. He almost didn't get all three of them but of course I'm guessing under pressure Bush agreed and they had the whole thirty-two page rule book. :eyes: I remember one time reading how the Ukraine's had their debates. They had no rules about how to engage each other and no draw lines on the stage and whatnot. I was watching a little bit of it and it was really great. I would love to see something like that here! Of course Kerry would've so grilled Bush!

[ginnyinWI]

15. the media is supposed to lead the opposition,

you're right. But they are falling down on the job. But if Kerry and the other Dem leaders can keep asking those hard questions, and frame them correctly, we'll pick up those stragglers who come down with "voters' remorse"!

Remember during the campaign where Kerry keep asking Bush to debate him on the monthly basis. Nobody was surprised when Bush refused to be called out, but it did show that Kerry wasn't afraid of him at all.

[JI7]

17. i agree, the closeness of the election shows how much we can do

even with the crappy media.

i think internet use is very helpful. we need to do something to get all americans easy access to the internet no matter what their financial background or where they live.

[RealDems]

4. Blair is the British example of the Third Way...

the U.S.'s DLC. It is a mistake for Kerry to listen to Tony Blair.

[LittleClarkie]

5. I was going to say apples and oranges, but that's to simplistic

I think that to call Blair a British version of DLC is alittle odd considering that they're style of governement is so much different than ours. I love watching the raucousness of the House of Commons. I think those people really know how to get in each others faces. It's not policy Kerry needs to learn from Blair, it's a style of opposition. I don't think it hurt Kerry to have a listen to what Blair might say. I'm sure Kerry's also smart enough to keep the kernel and toss the chafe of Blair's advice.

I sure wouldn't listen to Blair on foreign policy. That's for sure. He's too much of a "me too."

[ginnyinWI]

18. my thoughts exactly

People are missing the point. JK's learning how to oppose, not policy. Isn't it great that he is close enough to a leader like the prime minister of Great Britain, to be able to just call and tap him for advice! Ha, the very fact that Blair is helping shows whose side he's really on! I never believed that poodle stuff. He's being the ultimate diplomat for the sake of the world community.

[AP]

10. If the Third Way stops working, Blair would be first to abandon it.

Blair impresses me as a politician who knows what it takes to win elections.

[borg5575]

6. Whatever I think of Blair?

They call him "Bush's poodle" for good reason.

[Roland99]

9. Exactamundo!

[ginnyinWI]

13. that's only what the media thinks

:nopity:

[borg5575]

20. No, I think that way too

Blair was complicit in Bush's illegal war in Iraq. Everybody knows that by now. Blair has defended Bush to the hilt.

I'm amazed that we even have to have this discussion. Blair was Bush's enabler and gave Bush political cover when most other European governments refused to go along with Bush's folly.

And to this day Blair asserts that the invasion of Iraq was correct policy.

Need anyone say more?

[blm]

19. People forgetting the fact the Tories dominated for decades till Blair and

the Labour Party expanded their power as an opposition party.

I am always amused by those who have no sense of history and have trouble realizing that Democrats were never so completely out of power before. It was only since 2003, and Kerry was campaigning against Bush during that time.

The Repubs were used to being out of power or had presidents who would actually work WITH Democrats on policy. They structured themselves as opposition in 92 and have pounded away since then and don't seem to know when to let up, they are so used to being abrasive.

Of course, they managed to weasel control over most of the mainstream media during that time, too. And that is why political discourse is coarser now than at any time in our history.

So, now is as good a time as any to enact a full-on opposition as strategy.

I don't know how we overcome the GOP controlled mainstream media, however. The Repubs know it works for them and so they lie with impunity. They will never give up their media control so the DNC has to expose how the corporate media operates in concert with the GOP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. It figures. One pro-war sellout pol yakking with another.

Trying to figure out how they can convince their respective populi that they are not liberals.

[hippiechick]

11. NOW he wants to build an opposition party ?

Uhhhh .... where's his head been for the past 4 years ? :freak:

[dsc]

12. They are different systems

Bush Sr. tried this in 92 bringing in Tory politicos who had just beaten Kinnock in 91. It didn't help them and it won't help Kerry. Britian is much more partisan than we are in the states and party discipline is much more stringent. Kerry can be a spokeman for our party but he can't get the likes of Nelson or Landreau to sing his tune.

[JI7]

16. Blair studied Clinton's strategy and it helped him as we can see now

it's not just about getting people like Landrieu and Nelson on our side, but if we increase membership with more Democratic seats we can set the agenda on which to vote.

so some right wing crap would never be brought up for a vote and people like Landrieu and Nelson would not have to worry about those votes.

if we get enough seats we might even be able to pass some good legislation with people like Landrieu and Nelson able to vote different.

Blair of course did things a little different from Clinton to try to make it work with the system they have.

if Democrats can gain control of the Senate and if/when Ted Kennedy retires Kerry would have a lot of power in the Senate finally as a senior Senator. and since Blair is actually a member of parliament before they vote for him there are some similarities in that. of course there are differences also though. but i can see why he would talk to him about it.

also there is a limit to how effective you can be. and Pappy Bush had problems that were much more than just about some strategy.