August 23, 2004

Is Kerry Done? Maybe .... maybe not
Posted by McQ

Adam Sparks at SFGate puts together a long list of reasons why he figures "The Jig is Up for Kerry". Its an interesting read. The first thing he claims is it quietly imploded when Kerry admited he'd have voted for the war resolution even if we had known what we know now about WMDs, etc. Sparks feels that pretty well sliced any possiblity of the winning vote from his side by alienating the peacenik faction which resided with the Deaniacs.

Possibly. But the Deaniacs must have remembered that as recently as January of 2003, Kerry was saying things like, “[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime."

I realize he changed his colors when it became politically expedient to do so (to appeal to the Dean supporters and their ilk during the primaries), but is this really something that will surprise and disgust them enough to refuse to vote for Kerry?

I'm not sure it is.

Sparks then goes into quite a litany of other reasons. One that struck my eye was this:

In 1997, he mused on the floor of the Senate, "Why it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?" Kerry knew then about the global threat al Qaeda poses. Is this how he and Clinton prepared us for the war on terror?

The debatable point here is did he indeed know about the global threat al Qaeda posed? That's really hard to establish. I would be assumed that someone serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be up on that terrorist threat, but then this guy missed 38 of the 49 Senate Intelligence public meetings during his tenure.

Is it any wonder that the proposed $6 billion in cuts in intelligence funding instead of boosting it? One would guess if he were in fact up on the terrorist threat, he wouldn't have made such a proposal. So he was either ill-informed or didn't have the best interest of the security of the United States in mind when he made the proposal. Either way, its clear his proposal was not in the best interest of the US and this was demonstrated when his colleagues roundly defeated his proposal 75-20.

Sparks also notes Kerry's almost knee-jerk opposition to troop withdrawl:

And then there's his response to Bush's announcement last week of the largest return of troops since the start of the Cold War, in which the president promised to bring back to the United States 70,000 troops from units originally deployed in Europe and Asia as a presence to deter communist aggression. This move should please all those antimilitary types in Europe and the United States. However, to everyone's surprise, Kerry said he's against the decision, which he calls "hasty." The Cold War ended in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was torn down, and that decisive candidate, John Kerry, now calls the president's decision to finally bring the troops back "hasty"?

As noted here, this was only weeks after he'd said he was for making the very realignment he was now against. If his justification for cutting intelligence funding was based on the fact that the Cold War had ended how in the world does he justify keeping Cold War troop deployments 15 years after its end? In a word: politics. If Bush is for it, he must be against it. Its what his base expects.

Of course we've discussed the Swift Boat thing and Christmas in Cambodia to death, but Sparks touches on them. I'll leave the details for you to read and concentrate on this aspect:

This reminds me of the thundering silence from the left when Bill Clinton's peccadillos came to light. After hounding Bob Packwood from office for lesser offenses, they simply refused to engage the Clinton problem. Paula Jones, et. al. were treated as pariah's. But now, when the left tries to lecture on "women's rights" and "abusing women", they're reminded of their ignoring the problem when politically the perpetrator was on their side. Their blatant moral relativity removed them most emphatically from the moral high-ground. The same principle applies here. In principle, you're either for the first amendment or you're not. You can't be for it on a selective basis depending on the politics of those involved. But it again appears to be the case with the left as it pertains to the Swift Boat Vets. Where are the great first amendment crusaders of the left on this one? You can hear the crickets chirping away.

Sparks then does a little "poll analysis" and notes some of the difficulties Kerry now faces:

Now that we all know Kerry is more warlike than the president -- after all, he would have removed Saddam without any evidence of WMDs -- Bush's job approval in the latest Gallup poll is now at 51 percent, almost identical to Clinton's 52 percent rating in August 1996 and President Reagan's 54 percent mark in August 1984. Last week, USA Today reported that "no president who has been at or above 50 percent at this point in an election year has lost."

Well "no president has lost" rules are simply made to be broken. But Sparks gives you some other links and analysis which makes a pretty descent case for "not this time". You may or may not agree with his analysis, but it is interesting.

Sparks concludes with:

The Democratic primary was hotly contested, but there was no question of Bush getting the Republican nod. The Demos really would like to be excited for Kerry, if they could figure out just who he is and what he stands for -- this week. The Kerry strategy of campaigning on the basis of not being Bush is, unfortunately, not enough to win an election. As of now, with most of Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans on the warpath against him, it looks as if his swift boat to the White House has sprung a leak and is sinking quickly.

We live in interesting times. The admission he'd have voted for the Iraq war resolution even if he knew then what he knows now, the Swit Boat flap and the brutal attempts to suppress their right to express themselves along with rising poll numbers for Bush in front of the Republican convention do indeed spell trouble for Kerry. All the distractions have kept him off message and on defense. And when he has taken a moment to address the issues (Iraq war and troop realignment), he's fumbled them.

If he's still playing catch-up and defense coming out of the Republican Convention and Bush gets any kind of a decent bump, I'd have to say Kerry'd be all but toast.

We'll have to stay-tuned and see.

TrackBack

Comments

Sparks may indeed be precipitously calling the election for Bush right now. But you've got to hand it to him, it takes guts to make that kind of call. I just hope he's right.

Posted by: el Seco at August 23, 2004 11:57 AM

I'm unconvinced anything that Kerry says or does will influence in the slightest, his base of around 46% of the voters.

I personally have my doubt that the campaign slogan of "He's Not George W. Bush" is enough for anyone but Kerry's base to take him seriously... But for that base, that 46%, they're willing to swallow hard and pull the lever. The reason's simple; all they care about is dumping Bush. what happens after is of no account with these idiots. Callm in brand loyalty, call it revenge for the last loss, whatever you will. THere is in fact no logic behind the support for Kerry at this point.


Think; The far left, for all it's anti-war bluster, amazingly didn't seem to mind much when he made Vietnam, a war they diagreed with, the center of his qualifications for the office of President. seems clear to me that somehting other than excitement around KErry himself is the cause of this kind of dogged determination. Kerry is perhaps, aside form Mike Dukakas, the Democrat nominee who has least exicted the Democrat base in the last 70 or 80 years. And yet, the base still doggenly supports him.

Granted they'd have preferred Howard Dean's wild-eyed liberalism... but on the whole that 46% isn't moving moving even should Kerry suddenly be revealed as an axe murderer.

This has been a war of one step ata time. A few months ago, Dean lost all of hs following in the DNC because of a melt-down that makes Kerry's foul-ups look like China Syndrome by comparison.

And yet they still claim tosupport Kerry. Why?

Let's call this what it is...What motivates Kerry's base isn't getting Kerry elected, nearly as much as it is a hatred for George W. Bush and getting him unelected.

Not much sense, there, but what it is.

Posted by: Bithead at August 23, 2004 12:04 PM

I think it is safe to say that much of Kerry's base only wants Bush out of the White House. However, I can't believe that none of them will change between now and Nov. 2. I think the key will be focusing on Kerry's history in the Senate. If we can make Kerry's followers understand who they are supporting instead of who they are opposing, we will make large strides in Bush's numbers. Thus, it is not about what Kerry does or says now; it's about what he has done and said in his 20 years as a Senator. The truth is on our side.

I don't think that Dean lost the primary because of his screaming. He was just too "out there" to be a real contender against Bush. After all, consider that he only screamed after he had already lost against Kerry in the first election.

Posted by: el Seco at August 23, 2004 12:23 PM

Those mindless voters we're talking about are never going to vote for Bush and are unlikely to bother with Nader. What we need to do is make Kerry take a stand on the PATRIOT Act, which he practically wrote, and his other awful positions on state power and civil liberties. He's a terrible candidate if you care about personal freedom and enough attention to that issue might just help these ABB's stay at home Nov. 3.

Posted by: spongeworthy at August 23, 2004 01:04 PM

Is he really so stupid as to take a position against what he, as you say, practically wrote?

Hmmm.

Posted by: Bithead at August 23, 2004 01:09 PM

The 1000th American troop will die in Iraq just after the RNC. Whatever bump Bush gets will be stained with that soldier's blood.

Plame? Forget about that case?

One month before 9/11 what was Bush's biggest concern? Missle defense.

The point is this: If you want to cherry pick to find Kerry's faults, and you want to ignore Bush's (first net loss of jobs since Hoover, record deficits, greater middle class tax burden, diminished respect in the world, health care costs skyrocketing), of course you are going to conclude Bush wins.

But if you want to consider all the evidence, Kerry wins.

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 01:34 PM

Plame, no we haven't forgetten. Rather you would want us to forget that one, n'est-ce pas? As it turns out, her husband lied! She was involved in sending him and she lied! He found evidence and then lied again!

nope haven't forgotten that one.

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 01:39 PM

And how about that Kerry suggestion that we give Iran the nuclear fule it needs and trust them to do the right thing.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5570503/site/newsweek/

Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

Only an idiot would think that is all you need to turn the situation around.

yikes!

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 01:41 PM

Capt:

Interesting. Unfortunately, Fitzgerald is not investigating whether Wilson or Plame lied. He is investigating whether traitors work for Bush.

If traitors work for Bush, Bush loses.

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 01:42 PM

I believe that the law is written such that it is only a crime if the person explicitly knew of her actual status. If all they believed was that she was only an analyst in the CIA then it does not apply.

Why investigate at all, you might say? CIA policy requires that charges of disclosure under the act be investigated no matter what. This helps to prevent inadvertent disclosure by the govt.

Anyway, if the "traitors" of which you speak are Bushies then why are liberal reporters facing jail time over this for refusing to testify. hmmm.

The traitor label is a bit much for you, isn't it?

Aren't you the guy that gets all frothy when ever someone dances it out for Kerry? Yet here you are with traitor and bush.

I mean, it not like Kerry while in charge of VVAW ever condoned its actions such as:


  • discussing the assassination of public officials

  • making false war crimes charges

  • making unlawful contact with an an enemy govt to discuss treaties while a serving officer

  • having your public statements used by NVA interrogators against US POWS

But off course, I would never call him by that label since that would be rushing to a conclusion without properly evaluating the facts, would it not?

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 02:42 PM

CIA policy requires investigation? What the hell have you been smoking?

I assume you are not a lawyer. If you were, you would realize that the attorney general (the prosecutor) decides which crimes get prosecuted. If the CIA is now in charge of that function, I guess it's time for all of us to move to Canada.

And gosh, captain, if you would actuall read my friggin' post, you would see it says "if" and "whether." You see Cap'n, those of us who speaking English realize that these are terms used to make a conditional assertion, e.g., if X is true then Y is true. If Bush's people unlawfully outed Plame they are traitors. Because I know that you care more about hating Kerry than you do your country, I know you don't agree with that statement. On the other hand, I can safely say that most Americans would believe that outing one of our spies is traitorous activities.

Yes, after Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam he did what he could to stop the war so that more of the men he served with would not be killed. I know there are people like you who would rather see Americans killed than admit they made a mistake, but I guess that's your business.

Finally, if you don't think that Bush's conduct of the Iraq war is not serving as one long recruitment video for Al Qaeda, than you really have been at sea for too long. The one thing Osama wants is for Bush to be re-elected. Bush's war in Iraq has been a dream come true for Osama.

As someone put it, Bush is the Arabian Candidate. If I were a terrorist, and I wanted to recruit more members to my cause, do you think I am going to show my potential recruits a Kerry video, where he talks about being more sensitive? Or am I going to show them a Bush video, with a picture of a dead Iraqi baby in her mother's arms?

Traitor? Bush by a long shot.

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 02:57 PM

yep, that had exactly the effect I hoped. For all you conditional pretext we have your true belief "Traitor? Bush by a long shot."

Nope a lawyer I would never want to be. Not that there is anything wrong with that? ;)

Obviously your comprehensive serves you poorly as well since after separating ad hom, specious logic, we have very little in your return post.

But, policy it is, because the CIA makes request for investigation to the AG when it determines that conditions require demand it. It is still a violation in law if facts merit but the triggering action is a CIA request.

I am sure you would be happy in Canada, sort of like what Berkeley would be it's own country. ;)

Frothy, MK Ultra. What an amazing mind it takes to spin up little ditties like:


  • you care more about hating Kerry than you do your country

  • I know there are people like you who would rather see Americans killed than admit they made a mistake, but I guess that's your business

and don't forget dead Iraqi baby in her mother's arms, mustn't forget them? nope, nossir Bob.

Wow, you are the poster boy of froth and foam. Thanks for giving me a laugh. :)

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 03:17 PM

Because I know that you care more about hating Kerry than you do your country...
I know there are people like you who would rather see Americans killed than admit they made a mistake...
Traitor? Bush by a long shot.

I have been conflicted about mkultra for some time. On the one hand, he does raise some valid issues, and I really hate to suggest that anyone be banned. On the other hand, his (or her?) style is so over-the-top that he is tedious to read, and his style is over-the-top for both his valid points and his invalid ones.

However, I have now decided. With those vicious ad hominem attacks against another commenter here and against our current president, I think mkultra should be banned from QandO. I certainly will no longer make the effort to read his comments.

But of course I am not in charge here. And an apology from him may cause me to change my mind.

Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 23, 2004 04:02 PM

I don't see any ad hominem attacks on this thread by me, but if you do, I'll take your word for it. As for name calling by others, on another thread today I was called a "bastard" and "frickin' hypocrite."

So go ahead: ban me. Feel free. Of course, I know those who called me names wouldn't be banned, but hell, who needs intellectual consistency anyway.

As for our president, well, there's nothing I could say about this brave man that he has not said already. While all of you rail against Kerry - a man who went to Vietnam, got shot at, and who led men into battle, I would remind you of the character of George Bush, who leads us bravely against the terrorists. That character is best summed up when he said the following:

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment," Bush told the Dallas Morning News in 1990. "Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

You see, it's not about being brave, or taking a principled stand against the war. No, to George Bush, it's about better himself. It's all about himself. And if that's the guy you want as your leader, well more power to you.

Posted by: mklutra at August 23, 2004 04:47 PM

intellectual consistency?

Well, you definitely are consistent. To the point of being extremely obtuse.

I have never seen you accept any argument no matter how wrong you were. So you are consistent in the sense of the hobgoblin of....

Wouldn't you feel better in the echo chamber of atrios. Bush is Hilter! No he's da devil! No he's worse than that! spit, lather, foam, yada ya ya ya.

Come on man, if you don't have facts you spew loose invective like a tourist in Mexico who drank the water.

Arguments please, slogans later, Invective never.

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 05:17 PM

So let's look at how the press has given a pass to kerry where others have not, shall we?

In 1992, Sydney Blumenthal was contracted to do a hit piece on Bush Sr for the new republic.

What really happened at Chichi Jima will never finally be resolved. Were the men really dead when Bush jumped? Did one man parachute out? Why did the intelligence report say one thing and the Finback log another? And why have Bush's versions changed over time? Bush's experience in the Good War was more tortured and his accounts more tortuous than he now admits.

This was when a decorated WW2 vet (Bush Sr) faced off against a draft dodger (Clinton).

Remember Kerry's words about military service not being a requirement for the presidency?

In 1996, Another hit piece was commisioned by the nation to dispute Dole's war record.

Again a decorated WW2 vet(Dole) was facing off against a draft dodger (Clinton).

It seems that you lefties have a problem with vets when there were on the wrong side.

Hey, maybe I got my meme's twisted around but I thought WW2 was the good war, the just war. You know, the one to rid the world of the nazis.


Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 05:27 PM

"With those vicious ad hominem attacks against another commenter here and against our current president, I think mkultra should be banned from QandO. I certainly will no longer make the effort to read his comments."


- - -You could just do what I (try to) do: until he says something worth rebutting, I stay out of it. He can make silly and/or tangential arguments all day, and I'll see no need to respond to them. If he makes a good point, makes what I consider a good challenge to the argument I put forth, then I'll respond in kind.

Otherwise, and if I do not respond, I stand behin my posts as written.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 23, 2004 05:32 PM

On topic for a change.

I think Tacitus's latest post does sound a turning point in the campaign.

By saying " Asked directly whether his Democratic rival for the presidency had lied, Bush said, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.", he is sidesteps the blow and (I know, this is going to start MKultra head spinning) neutralizes Kerry's charge of coordination.

And by calling for an end to ALL 527 attacks he sets kerry up for a furious backpedal.

Kerry has been neatly placed in the position of O Ren Ishii after the coup de grace. Suprised and exclaiming, "That is indeed a hanzo hattori sword".

And I vote for Mkultra not being banned because I get a kick out of his/her commentary. :)

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 05:50 PM

MKULTRA

You can bloviate all you wish, I won't call for you to be banned.

However, like Bluebeard's bloody hands, Monica's stained dress, Kerry has his VVAW albatross which is enough to sink him. I don't care how many of your posts, Carvilles and Lanny Davis' appearances and lawsuits he instigates. He cannot deny his own traitorous activities. The only way Bush loses now is that unforseen, unknown cataclysmic event.

Posted by: EddieP at August 23, 2004 06:46 PM

Did anyone read this?

But after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."

"They used Senator Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report. While he was languishing in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Kerry was telling the Fulbright committee that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.

Quite interesting. Apparently McCain had quite the hate on for Kerry until 2002 when they settled things.

"For many years McCain held Kerry's actions against him because, while McCain was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry was organizing veterans back home in the U.S. to protest the war."

In his 2002 book, "Man of the People: The Life of John McCain," Alexander says that the two Vietnam vets finally reconciled in the early 1990s after having "a long - and at times emotional - conversation about Vietnam" during a mutual trip to Kuwait.

That certainly seems to explain why McCain has been so neutral in all of this while people like Paul Galanti have spoken up.

Posted by: capt joe at August 24, 2004 12:13 AM