This potential scenario really harshes my mellow . . .

[ProfessorPlum]

Imagine a not so distant future in which candidate Kerry has sewn up the nomination. I come across one of my (unfortunately numerous) knuckle-walking, mouth-breathing relatives who think that Bush is the second coming of Christ:

Me: Well, the choice is clear. We've got to get rid of Bush - he lied repeatedly to get us into a costly, horrible, illegal war of choice.

KWMBR: There's nothing wrong with the war. We got rid of Saddam, didn't we?

Me: How is that in our national interest?

KWMBR: Even John Kerry said we were safer after we captured Saddam. So there's your justification right there. Kerry voted for the war too - so why would you say it is wrong?

Me: Kerry voted to give Bush the power to hold the threat of war over Saddam's head. He didn't think Bush would be stupid enough to start a unilateral invasion with no evidence of a threat!

KWMBR: Ah, what's the difference? If Kerry thought it was a big mistake, then why didn't he say so?

Me: He did - in spring of 2003, he said we need regime change here at home, and that the lead up to war was the biggest foreign policy blunder he'd ever seen.

KWMBR: What did he say about the war itself?

Me: Well, actually, he supported Bush's decision to invade once the thing got started.

KWMBR: See? Sounds like Kerry agrees with ol' GW. Now tell me again why them Democrats is so angry all of the time?

Me: (aside) &&^%@#*&^ Kerry.

[AP]

1. Regardless of who gets nominated, if we're arguing over

national security and terror primarily, the Republicans will win.

If we're arguing about which way economic, political and cultural power flow in America, Democrats win.

That's why Edwards is the best bet.

[democratreformed]

4. I think we could win on national security

But I agree that the issues you mentioned are the heart of what we need to get out in our message. I, too, think they are the winning issues for the Democrats.

[joshcryer]

6. Hmm...

...I don't think that's necessarily the case. Only if we hinge our approach on groupthink and not people using their own brains. I happen to believe in people. One of Dean's arguments about terrorism is that if we help countries abroad raise their standard of living, terrorists will be less prevalant. I'd love to see a Republican argue against that.

[david_vincent]

9. I disagree

The Republicans will win any argument over national security only if
we continue to let them frame national security in military terms.
As long as they continue to perpetrate the myth that "national security" means invading other countries militarily, then yes, they will win, because they're the party of war.
But if Democrats will only point out - as often as necessary - that
national security begins at home, and encompasses such things as energy policy and labor policy, then the Republicans will lose any argument over national security.
We must fight the lie that national security is something that can be
accomplished simply, and ONLY, by sending the Pentagon more and more money. National security means not being dependent on imported energy, it means Americans being employed in occupations that provide a living wage, and, in fact, it means health care for our citizens. Otherwise we'll end up with soldiers all over the world defending... what? an indefensible and unsustainable way of life?

[LuminousX]

2. You raise a very interesting point

I don't understand and thus can't defend Kerry's war position. I guess my worldview is more black and white than I thought it was. Kerry has mapped out a position on Iraq that is clearly withing the gray haze that I can't see.

I can't support a position I don't understand even if I wanted to.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. I know - I don't know how I'm going to defend Kerry

WRT Bush as far as Iraq goes.

As I've said before, Kerry has the "Jerry Lundegaard" position on Iraq. The Fargo comparison still lives.

[dreissig]

15. Kerry's War Position

Kerry was more afraid of what Republicans thought about him than what Democrats thought about him. He voted for the war because he thought anti-war Democrats are locked in. He's wrong about that. That's the mistake Democrats made in 1968.

Like domestic tranquillity? Don't nominate Kerry.

[ProfessorPlum]

17. I'd like to believe that

anti-war Democrats are smart enough (as evidenced by their being anti-war) not to do ANYTHING that would benefit W. I am one of them, and I certainly will not help W with my vote or my non-vote in any way.

But I agree that Kerry has run very hard at being the "safe" choice. When he started speaking up about the impending invasion in the spring of 2003, the media started bashing him about it, and he backed down real quick-like.

5. How about this response?

Kerry would be much more inclined to internationalize the issue. He would work with allies more than Bush ever would, if there were future conflicts.

I'm actually a Dean supporter, but I think this about Kerry; really about any Democratic candidate except for Lieberman.

[sangh0]

7. Your mistake is

Me: Well, actually, he supported Bush's decision to invade once the thing got started.

Kerry never supported Bush*'s decision to invade, and if you search you will not find any statement from Kerry in support of Bush*'s decision to invade. Kerry did support Bush*'s decision to disarm Saddam, but he never supported the method Bush* used (invasion)

I suspect you support a policy of feeding the hungry. Would that mean you support killing kittens and feeding the dead kittens to the hungry?

Moral: One can support a policy while at the same time oppose the way the policy is being implemented. Kerry supported disarming Iraq. Kerry opposed invading Iraq.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Am I the only one who remembers this?

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered
General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right
time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had
given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam
Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that
we did disarm him.

From the May 3, 2003 debate in South Carolina, transcript here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf

That sounds to me like it was the "right decision" to invade, though he would have liked to give diplomacy a greater chance (wouldn't we all?).

Now, please, it is up to you to provide a link showing that Kerry actually said that the invasion was wrong.

[sangh0]

22. Professor, iKerry does NOT say that

It's quite clear. "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam
Hussein."

There's a reason why you didn't put quotations around the words "to invade". It's because Kerry never said that.

The "right decision" was the "decision to disarm Saddam". It's right there in black and white. Kerry even repeats this:

"I support the fact that we did disarm him." Not "I support the fact that we invaded Iraq"

[ProfessorPlum]

24. I think that's a pretty weak defense

like saying Bush never said Iraq was an "imminent threat".

The bottom line is Kerry said he supports Bush's decision to disarm Saddam. (and Bush did that by way of invasion). If you've got some evidence that Kerry ever said hewas against the invasion in its totality, I'd appreciate seeing it.

[sangh0]

27. The truth is never a weak defense

If you've got some evidence that Kerry ever said hewas against the invasion in its totality, I'd appreciate seeing it.

If you need some links, PM me. I have to go now, and I don't want to forget you.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. yes, links right here in this thread would be great

I look forward to seeing them.

[Walt Starr]

8. I will not be discussing Kerry with anybody should he be the nominee

All I will say is, "I'm undecided about who to vote for in November and am not ready to discuss any of the candidates at this time."

I'll mark that line in the sand and leave it there until I vote.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

10. It's simple really

So simple that even Bush will be able to wrap his brain around it. Kerry spoke with his vote. He voted for all of us, to give Bush a blank check.

The media has served Bush his candidate on a silver platter, much like the S.C. served him his presidency in 2000. Am i still ABB? absolutely. Am I as happy about it as I used to be? No.

[CWebster]

13. Isn't that the tragedy

The best we can think to unite around is ABB.

[Walt Starr]

14. Some of us aren't buying into the crap

ABB means handing over the pwoer to the power guys to decide.

They decided long ago, "throw the '04 election and keep our cushy jobs."

[ProfessorPlum]

16. I honestly don't think Kerry's rise is due to

any kind of conspiracy from above.

I think it is just laziness on the part of most voters who see him as unthreatening to the status quo. That there are so many who haven't woken up sufficiently to the dangers of the status quo is what is a little frightening.

[polpilot]

25. Go to the DLC website for the answer to Kerry's rise. He's THE

ESTABLISHMENT candidate...30 plus years worth of it. The DLC's pro-war, pro-Patriot Act candidate is safe.

Dean '04...The Decent Party

[ProfessorPlum]

28. As true as that may very well be . . .

I don't think the voters in IA and NH went to the polls and were thinking: "must vote for the establishment candidate".

As much as the establishment may back Kerry, they weren't the ones pulling the levers.

The real question is: what is the state of awareness in most voters (so far) that makes Kerry the least unattractive choice for them?

[CWebster]

11. Your relatives would win the argument

How could they not win--there is nothing to argue against it. It would be hard to support Kerry with so little to defend him.

Damn annoited sacrificial lamb is right.

[Adjoran]

18. AP is right

Democrats don't win on national security. The last national security issue we used successfully was JFK's "missile gap" argument in 1960.

Democrats win on domestic policy issues, pocketbook issues.

If we can make the election about jobs and health care and education, we can win.

It doesn't matter much that we are "right" on the war. Saddam was one of the most hated people in the world for most Americans ever since 1990. Any argument that can be twisted around to say, "So, you would have left Saddam in power, then?" is a loser.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. It would be incredibly stupid

to cede this evil, expensive, deathly war to the Republicans as either correct or unimportant. If we just act like it is ok to be herded like frightened sheep into one war-profiteering conflict after another, what will stop them?

The answer to "leaving Saddam in power" is - "what harm would he have done to us?" And the follow up is - "the price we have paid is too high, and the return far too small."

[Armstead]

19. I remember the vote

I called Kennedy's office the day of the IRW vote and said I was asking him not to vote to give Bush a blank check to go to war. The secretary said "Don't worry, he's definetly voting against it."

Kerry's office, same request, different reaction. "Senator Kerry realizes this is a complex issue. He will take all views into consideration."

A little while later, Kerry made that disgusting pandering "I'm supporting this, but I'm not supporting this" speech as he voted for that idiotic gift to Bush.

I'm not a single issue person, and I could have forgiven him tha.t But that seems to epitomize his approach to every issue. So Kerry lost me right there.

ABB yes. With enthusiasm, no.

[PATRICK]

20. the failure of world leadership

despite the populations getting the truth instinctively was pretty universal. Kerry was holding to the left of the dominant American belief and position from top to bottom. Unfortunately it was a lie. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world knew it. Unfortunately a growing chunk of Americans, many of them Dems, got the main idea right too. Yet the American society- alone- is pretty much at least where Kerry anded up on with the vote. If all we achieve is turning the non-majority enlightened against Kerry neither the public nor the government will be moved to do anything but follow more disasters helplessly into the future.

Crush the war issue, the public myths, if you can, but don't shoot Kerry in the foot because he is a more available target.

Also be more alarmed at the larger issue how the "free world" is led idiotically by unresponsive political manipulators with corporate interests most at heart. That includes many against the war like Chirac and Kohl for whom popular opinion was merely an opportunity- not a mandate of conscience. The real story is that the democratic societies are so badly represented on basic life and death issues as to show the whole thing is not working- to our clear and present peril. We won't get better leaders without getting involved, but what we face now is the choice whether to even have a future chance.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. well said

and Kerry only represents a good person who didn't do anything to stop the evil, not the evil itself.

Still, I'm very unethusiastic about him, and less optimistic about all of our futures.

[Skip Intro]

21. Kerry should answer yes or no to this:

Senator Kerry, was invading Iraq the right thing to do? Yes or no.


I do not agree with those who say we must forfiet the national security issue to the repubs. The case for bush's invasion is falling apart as we speak. The public's support for bush's invasion is weak, and I believe must be waning. If it isn't, it would be if the opposition - ie our party's leaders, would simply present the facts.

National security will be a defining issue, rove will see to that. If we're going to be bush-lite on the issue, we might as well run Lieberman.