Silly Meme of the Day: Kerry Lost Because He Was A "Fighter"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:53:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

My friend Ed Kilgore writes an interesting piece that is marred by one of the sillier pieces of poliitical analysis I have seen in a while:

When you boil it all down, our last two presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry, were rich in policy proposals and Shrumian "fighting" rhetoric, but largely bereft of any overarching message (Gore, to be more precise, had several messages, but couldn't settle on one for any length of time). Nobody needs Bob Shrum any more to convey an intention to "fight" Republicans. Obama is all message (the same message of beyond-polarization and reform that John Kerry rejected and Wesley Clark botched in 2004), and part of his early appeal is that he scratches a long-standing itch among message-starved Democratic and independent voters. It also enables him to simultaneously run to the left and right of his main rivals.

You see what Kilgore is saying? Kerry (and Gore I guess) lost because of rejection of the DLC message of "beyond polarization and reform." To which I say hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You must be joking. Kerry lost because he was viewed as not standing for anything. "Voted for it before I voted against it defined Kerry."

First, Gore WON! Second, Kerry came close BECAUSE he was a partisan fighter after Labor Day. If he had fought on Iraq from the word go he could have won I believe. Talk about rewriting history. Ed also rewrites the present on Edwards:

Edwards is the one candidate so far to put together both a clear message (an updated version of his "Two Americas" theme from 2004) and a lot of policy detail.

What does Ed leave out? The fact that Edwards has adopted a very partisan fighting stance, ripping Bush and the Republicans at every turn. Indeed, Edwards' upswing is, imo, largely attributable to that. Johnny Sunshine learned the lesson too late of the need for a Politics of Contrast. To his credit, he will not make that mistake again.

It always amazes me when smart folks like Ed disdain the obvious need for partisanship in politics. It worked in 2006, and when used, in 2004. Heck, it is also the RIGHT thing to do. The Republican Party of Bush must be opposed fiercely, for the good of the country.

< Lars Erik Nelson on Imus and Lieberman | N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine Critically Injured While En Route to Imus Meeting >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Silly Meme of the Day: Kerry Lost Because He Was A "Fighter" | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Politics without partisanship is (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:30:13 PM EST

like non-alcoholic beer-- what is the point?

Ed suffers from to much good government and not enough willingness to fight to get elected. You can't govern without getting elected.

He is the opposite of the GOP. They want to get elected, but they aren't particularly interested in government. They don't like, they don't believe in it and as a consequence, when elected, they don't govern very well.

I agree (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:45:45 AM EST

that the Repubs, at least those on the Right, do not like government and have a base belief that less is better.

As to whether or not they "govern well," I see no particular basis for that beyond them not passing various laws that you and I might think useful.

But when it comes to partianship, wasn't it the Demos who said politcs was a "Blood Sport?"

[ Parent ]

I wish (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by roy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:50:52 AM EST

Let's not spread the notion that the GOP believes "less is better" anymore. Maybe they used to, but it discarded that lie back in 2000 or so. It seems that the "small government" party is whichever one can't get the government to grow in the way it wants.

They may want less social spending, but more law enforcement, more criminal laws to enforce, more trade protectionism, more military spending, more entanglement with religion, more pork...

Sure, they cut tax rates, but they jacked up spending. That doesn't count as "small government".

[ Parent ]

: They'd rather corporations goverened us MORE (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Dadler on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:06:19 PM EST

Because corporations are ultimately run by a monied board of directors and big shareholders, not those annoying free American citizens.

[ Parent ]

None so blind (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:13:41 PM EST

as those who will not see...

we will just add this to the list of things you do not see!
(and what Jim doesn't see, doesn't exist... right?)

[ Parent ]

They smeared a veteran's war record (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:25:40 AM EST

That was truly the most repugnant, partisan political act that I have ever witnessed. If that's what it takes to get elected, then bring in the generals.

Che (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:35:12 AM EST

Before I start, I remind you that I thanked Kerry for his service. Just being there was an act of bravery and sacrifice.

Now. Did they "smear" his war record? I think what they did was question his record and provide people who were willing to say that what he claimed was not true.

Kerry hurt himself in four ways.

In his acceptance speech he said "...reporting for duty..." That brought his war record into play. The good and the bad.
He had smeared all Vietnam veterans with his comments to the Senate on 4/23/71, his anti-war actions and throwing his medals over the fence.

Thus he lost almost all the sympathy that would have been his by many veterans. In their minds, right or wrong, he deserved the payback.

His false claim that he had been in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. That gave some credence to the other claims.
His slowness to release his DOD records. It is still claimed that he never released all of them. That is true, as far as I know.

Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:40:13 AM EST

They said he self inflicted his wound.

They lied.

You are really unbelievable Jim.

Why do you do this?

Be a principled conservative. They have denounced the Swift Boat campaign and YOU still defend it.

[ Parent ]

He does this (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:58:18 AM EST

only to provoke responses. Of any kind. What kind don't matter to him. Any kind will do.

[ Parent ]

: edger (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:19:29 PM EST

I made a rather detailed comment of why Kerry lost the election and neither you, dadler or BTD do anything but attack.
Especially since my comment described what happened without judging either way.
My stated personal beliefs, stated in my next comment, were that some things were accurate, some were not and that all were colored through the lens of seeing things during combat ana a very high tension level.
I did say I found his statements to the Senate on 4/23 to be damning because they smeared millions of veterans.
And, as my link showed, many were actually based on lies by people who had not even been in the military or in Vietnam.
Yet BTD, dadler or you are not concerned about that. Instead you want to worry about the co-author of a book. That is the mother of all strawmen.
Omitted of course was that the other co-author of said book served in Vietnam, in fact, took over as commander on Kerry's when Kerry left early. Do you think that maybe he had something to say about what was in the book???

[ Parent ]

BTD - First of all (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:31:51 AM EST

I am not a "conservative," unless you believe that a conservative believes in gay marriage, national health care, drug law reform, tax reform...

All of these positions are backed by comments in the archives of this blog going back four years.

My comments re his record and the claims against him did not indicate a belief in the accuracy of either, but a comment re what was done.

Personally I believe that some of it was accurate, some not. Many of the descriptions are of things that happened during combat and reflect what the person saw, or thought he saw during times of high tension and very fast action.

Much of the "belief" is based on whether or not you beieve his applications for medals were justifed based on descriptions not in dispute.

Kerry's later anti-war actions in the minds of his detractors, sealed their belief. It is his claims to the Senate that I find damning.

[ Parent ]

That is nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:34:14 AM EST

They LIED Jim. Flat out lied.

That they did not like Kerry's Winter Soldiers testimony is no excuse to lie.

Except for you apparently.

[ Parent ]

BTD (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:04:26 PM EST

Please try and read what I said without assuming things.

Now, did they lie? I know of no proven "lies." There are numerous differences of opinion, differences in claims, etc.

As I noted before, the Left in general likes to use the word "lie." They have done so to the point that it is almost meaningless, becoming much like the boy who cried wolf.

As I said, what I find damning was this:

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This was an insult beyond belief. Much of it was also fake:

When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.


[ Parent ]

The proven lies (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:07:11 PM EST

are well documented. If you do not know that then you know nothing about them.

Do you even know who Jerome Corsi is?

[ Parent ]

He's rummaging through the Google search... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Dadler on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:26:17 PM EST

...Looking for the one or two sites that have anything good to say about Corsi.

NewsMax link to come.

[ Parent ]

: dadler (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:56:57 PM EST

Hi nasty guy. Nothing to say, just an attack.

[ Parent ]

BTD (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:55:55 PM EST

If they are so well documented, providing a link should be easy.

That they you didn't.....

[ Parent ]

One Sentence, One Paragraph from the WHOLE STORY: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Freewill on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:43:11 PM EST

One selected sentence, paragraph or even chapter taken from the entire story never sums up the what the point of the original message was meant to portray. It's easy to dissect a complete story into a one sentence synopsis to display "Evil Intent" and completely disregard the rest of the story.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

I understand that some people become afraid of reality and want to wrap themselves into some protectionist blanket and ignore the full story to try and prove anti-American intent. Hell, it's a very "Enriching and Power Inheriting" venture to use propaganda out of context to smear your opponents. I just ask that people read the full story before they pass judgement.

I've found that those who simply reiterate that line about how Kerry accused American Soldiers... are extremely hesitant to read the full transcript of his speech. Instead, they tend to do the same thing they did to Michael Moore and pass comments on something they themselves never viewed.

[ Parent ]

Freewill (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:06:32 PM EST

Kerry's statement to the Senate 4/23/71.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Note the last words of paragraph.

not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

That pretty well smears everyone.

We now know that many of these so-called soldiers were never soldies, never in Vietnam and had lied.
I have always given Kerry the benefit of doubt to the question, did Kerry know this? But there is no doubt that he took what he was told and without questioning it an gave it national exposure. I call that reckless unreasonable behavior at best.

[ Parent ]

: 150 doesn't equal everyone (none / 0) (#30)
by Freewill on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:42:09 PM EST

Jim, really when the Swift Boaters did their thing they did it well and they used the fact that most people would never read the entire transcripts of the hearings. Because that particular paragraph was basically Kerry's opening statement most people stop right there.
I challenged Vietnam Vets who parroted the Swift Boat talking points to read the full transcripts back in 2004 and most were hesitant. I couldn't understand why they were so eager to pass on one sentence or paragraph but yet they wouldn't take the time to read the full story. However, those who did take the time to read the full story all came back and stated to me that Kerry was telling the truth.
I guess my question then becomes; Why is the truth so hard to handle?
Soldiers don't initiate the Wars they fight. They don't control how long they remain in the fight. They are put into very stressful situations usually at a very young age and those exposures shape the rest of their lives. "War is hell" and yes very bad things happen. I guess my point in reminding people to read the full story is to question this, would those 150 soldiers have ever been subjected to the atrocities that they either witnessed, heard of, or participated in if they were not forced into that fight by a select few?
The popular points of those Vietnam days was: "We must win this war to stop the spread of Communism", and "Our way of life is in jeopardy if Communist win". The talking points of those days is eerily remeniscient to the slogans of today's Wars. We didn't win in Vietnam so that just makes me wonder since the Nation as a whole was brainwashed with daily reminders of just how much we would be in trouble if we lost, just how did the loosing of that war change all of our lives here in America?
Was Kerry's speech to Congress in 1971 controversial? Hell yes! Why did it have to be so controversial? Because, for way to long our Society has glamorized wars and shielded our society from the horrors of war. In order to tell the truth some people's belief system took a huge hit and it probably sent them into a denial stage. What the Swift Boater's did to Kerry in 2004 was cherry picking and misdirecting the overall tone of his speech in 1971.
Do people have to right to be upset by his speech? Yep, they have every right to be upset however I just wish they would for one second have a dog in the fight before they send others to do their dirty work. I wish they would try to relate to what many brave Americans had to go through before they start throwing the stones at our young heroes.

[ Parent ]

His own words (none / 0) (#21)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 12:45:59 PM EST

Yes, those dirty swiftboaters were so dirty, slimey, filthy, that they actually replayed Kerry's own words! How low can they go?

[ Parent ]

Looking back from 2 yrs later (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:21:24 PM EST

It's amazing to me that Kerry got as close as he did.

I Can't Swear, but I swear this is (none / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:58:51 PM EST

one of the biggest crocks of stuff-a-loo I ever heard.

Whoever defines Kerry & Gore's pathetic campaigns as fighting, in way shape or form

is just sellign thug memes.

"if they weren't scarier, then they wouldn't have scared the middle, then they wouldn't have lost."

any statements above my ficticous comment above are just sophisticated lies for sophisticated excuses for

losing.

LOSING.

period.

rmm.......... period.

I think... (none / 0) (#4)
by LarryE on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:07:59 PM EST

...Kilgore means to say that promising to "fight the GOPpers" is not enough, candidates need an overarching "message." Which I think is true enough, but the DNC does have a history of insisting that the only valid message is the DNC's mealy-mouthed one.

I mean, "beyond polarization and reform?" Is that supposed to get people excited?

Ah, it is to laugh. (none / 0) (#5)
by mentaldebris on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:52:18 PM EST

Crivens, I hope not a single serious contender for president listens to this political idiocy.

IIRC, Kerry was a real partisan fighter when the swiftboat hit the fan. And Gore was downright strident when it came to the FL recounts. Real partisans. Gimme a break.

I always got the impression that Gore and Kerry were instructed by Shrum and other bubble pundit-influenced consultants to hold back the fight because they didn't want to appear too partisan. Polls said voters were sick of it. And everyone knows the pundits care so much about Democrats. They are always offering such wonderful advice because they care so much.

Note to consultants: Voters lie. Pundits are mostly clueless and are not your friend.

I, for one, hope the days of Dems being afraid to step on toes will be a thing of the past. The only way to highlight the differences between the repubs and the Democrats is for there actually to be a difference -- that's what partisanship is.

Partisan - 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

That Kilgore and his DLC ilk can't seem to grasp this simple fact has caused quite enough damage to Democrats. Any Dem who buys into this nonsense deserve the losses that will come their way. I just hope it's not our '08 nominee.

Gore lost (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:11:01 AM EST

In the end Gore lost because he could not carry his home state. People who knew him best, didn't support him.

Why?

Think for a minute. He was the VP with a hugely popular President. The economy, though obviously slowing, was good and we were not engaged in a war.

What went wrong?

Nothing went "wrong." Gore's natural personality. His desire to instruct people rather than lead them came through to the voters. They saw him as strident, pompous and aloof. That beat him. Pure and simple.

[ Parent ]

: Gore lost (none / 0) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:16:52 PM EST

because my state was stolen. Never forgive, never forget.

[ Parent ]

Rhetoric vs. reality? (none / 0) (#7)
by sphealey on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:07:03 AM EST

Perhaps the point was that they were full of "fighting rhetoric", but didn't actually have an organic fight in them - thus ending up with the worst of both worlds?

sPh

Nah. It was Dean (none / 0) (#12)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:00:41 AM EST

Dean wasn't allowed to be the nominee because he was a fighter and not acceptable to the DLC crowd.

Kerry lost because he didn't fight enough.

this hurts (none / 0) (#28)
by orionATL on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:03:00 PM EST

to even talk about.

if john kerry had had the sense of himself

to run on the same emotions and understandings he articulated in 1971(?), to whit,

i was there
war is an atrocity
why are our guys dying for the benefit of politicians back home?

- the environment is important (an understanding he later developed)

he would be president today.

how freaking' hard would it have been to say these things?

if kerry had been more concerned with what was right than what might be acceptable to "voters"

he would be president.

too hard for kerry.

too bad for the united states.

damn! damn! damn!

more war,

more destruction of Iraqi society,

more corruption in american government,

alito and roberts.

damn!

no guts, no good for your country.

in politics,

if you are afraid to lose, you can't win.