Back in the Day, after Kerry's coronation in Boston, he maintained his "tough guy" image by saying that he would have taken down Saddam. Now he has changed to a Pacifist approach to the war. Posted on 09/21/2004 10:55:39 AM PDT by section9
Back in the Day, after Kerry's coronation in Boston, he maintained his "tough guy" image by saying that he would have taken down Saddam. Now he has changed to a Pacifist approach to the war.
It was all a Tragic Mistake. The clueless BushHitler rushed into war without a plan to end the war and, worst of all, without the French. Now we are paying an intolerable price in lives because of BushHitler and his patrons at Halliburton. So, next year, we'll bug out faster than a herd of young boys from Michael Jackson's Neverland estate. It's another Vietnam and we're all going to die.
Kerry even got some Gold Star Mothers to bear witness to the righteousness of his positions.
Anyway, we know how Bush will handle this; by being aggressive in Iraq and stating again and again why we are fighting and why we will win. But that begs the question: why did Kerry move to the Left on the war?
Two words: Ralph Nader.
Nader has grown in importance in Kerry's mind and in his strategies. Bush's lead in the polls have grown as a result of the public's conclusion that he is the best man to command our forces in war. Women, for instance, split evenly among the two candidates because of the undercurrent among the ladies that Bush will protect them and their children better than will Kerry. Kerry's convention was all about being a tough guy and cutting into Bush's lead among men while wrapping up the Security Moms for the nominee.
The Swifties and Kerry's changing positions on the WOT put paid to Kerry's perceived advantage. After the RNC, Bush began to roar ahead on the critical question of the war. He had been consistent all year round in his pursuit of the WOT and the Iraqi Campaign. His consistency began to pay off. Bush's "flip flop" campaign highlighted voters' unease with the Kerry personality: an unwillingness to hold to a position in a time of war.
While Kerry was trying to tack to the center on the war and build himself up as a Manly Man, his base voters were looking at the polls and found themselves at sea. Kerry's only has a "40%" strongly support number. Bush is at 60% among Pubbies. Kerry's base voters are against the Iraq campaign. The dirty little secret among Democrats is that their base voters are also against the War on Terror. As Kerry moved away from his base, and his base looked at the poll numbers, they started to withdraw from the candidate. They became depressed. And their interest in Nader started to pick up.
As usual, Michael Moore is a fine barometer of Left attitudes. His latest screed is a condemnation of Kerry as a candidate and a jeremiad against despondent Democrats.
And so, Kerry decided that he had to jazz up his base to keep them from sitting out the election or going to Nader. That's why he's moving left. He was always going to end up doing this. When he was in trouble last fall, he moved Left to eat into Howard Dean's support. He is doing the same thing now, but for different reasons.
Will it work? No. Americans don't like a politician who promises defeat and a shameless bugout. Bush will patiently explain his case and state that his objective is victory in war. The American people always buy that; simply because they value winners over losers.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Kerry is moving left and becoming more and more anti-war because thats where 90% of his base is.
I don't know what it is about that phrase, but every time I read it, I dissolve in a fit of giggles.
Anyway, to the issue at hand...it's no surprise that Kerry's flip-flopping over the Iraq war and the war on terror as a whole. If that man has a spine, it isn't made of bone; it's comprised of frickin' windsocks.
Kerry hasn't changed at all. He has finally revealed himself as the anti-war, foreign nation loving pacifist that he has always been. What you're seeing now is the true sKerry. If by some miracle, he were elected, I think he would pull our troops out of Iraq.
because he HAS to.
btw - have you seen "GitS2: Innocence" yet?
Well sure, that's the point I suppose. But implicit in what you say is that his previous positions were self-serving lies mentioned in passing to gain tactical advantage. Nixon, without the Nixonian gravitas.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Exactly.
I do not think it is Nader. Do not dismiss what I am about to write. Kerry no longer believes he is going to win. He has looked at his own internal numbers and realizes he cannot make the majority of americans like him enough to make him president. He just wants to make sure that diehard democrats, the unions, inner-city blacks, and ignorant masses at least show up for something. He does not want to be an encyclopedia (webpedia) entry on the same page with Dukakis, Mondale, and Dole.
He knows he IS the Bob Dole of the Democrats. But he does not want to be humiliated.
Kerry's advisors are not doing this in order to win. They have given up. Now they are trying to loot the left-wingers so that they can pocket a large percentage of their money when Bush is re-elected--just like Joe Trippi did with Howard Dean. The DU people open their wallets as long as the Dems talk about Bush being AWOL, the reinstitution of the draft, and Halliburton.
Notice that the Kerry campaign is talking about all three of those things right now--even running ads on Halliburton.
Right-wingers should take note, because our people do this all the time.
I've got one word for that post;
BINGO!
Nostalgia. Maybe he still has a thing for Hanoi Jane.
Normally Democrats run to the left during the primary and go back toward the middle as the election proceeds.
Kerry couldn't do that because Dean had seized the left in the public eye. Kerry is, actually far more leftist than Dean, going by their records, but the media didn't play it that way and the voters weren't given that picture by the presstitutes.
So Kerry won the nomination by pretending to be a moderate. Now his leftist base is getting very restless, so he has to move further left. That will turn off all the undecideds and the moderate Democrats.
He has allowed his whole campaign to be run back*sswards.
I don't think Nader is that relevant to this election. The only time I see Nader's name mentioned is when he is being disqualified from another state's ballot. I haven't seen one genuine Nader supporter, except for Bush supporters who want him to suck votes from Kerry.
I think the reason Kerry is going left is that he hasn't shored up his base. His assumption going into the convention was that union members, blacks, women, minorities, teachers, the media, and the anti-war crowd were automatically going to vote for him.
With 40% of the electorate in the bag, he ran on his Vietnam record, thinking that was the John Kerry that would get the most votes from the other 60% of the country. Then the Swiftboat Vets blew up in his face, and the Bush AWOL story got quagmired in Rathergate.
Now his base is restless and he has to shore them up. Plus that's where the money is. Kerry has all the money he can get for his campaign, but the 527's fill their coffers from Michael Moore conspiracy theories about AWOL and Halliburton.
I think you're on to something. He's trying to re-establish his lefty bone fides so that he can preserve some clout in the next election cycle. He wants his endorsement of the next demo candidate to be worth more than Gore's has been this time around.
Personally, I am of the opinion that if Kerry somehow manages to win the election, he will find himself unable to pull troops out like he wants (seeing as he has a poor exit strategy) and will end up turning the affair into a real quagmire.
My other fear is that it is a Kerry Administration that would bring about the much worried about "draft" we keep hearing about. The Bush Administration is well aware of the fact that a professional volunteer army is far better than a drafted one. I don't believe the same can be said about the Democrats. Kerry will go in with no plausible exit strategy and no strategy for actually winning, thus stirring up a quagmire that, from a Democrat point of view, will require more troops.
It's just a hunch but I don't doubt that it could happen for a second.
Chris: as far as I'm concerned, you're always allowed to post vanities, as your comments are ever-perceptive.
Why is Kerry moving to the Left on the War?because he HAS to.
btw - have you seen "GitS2: Innocence" yet?
Of course he has to, but only now are we realizing how much of a profound lie John Kerry has been peddling all year.
I'm going to see GItS2: Innocence, tomorrow. It's opening at the Sunrise Blvd. 15 down by the New River in Downtown Ft. Lauderdale.
As Mamoru Oshii directed it, we have to put up with interminable scenes of Oshii's damn dog-a beagle that's in all his films. I am a tad uneasy about the change to the environment in which Batou operates during the film: too "Blade Runnerish" for my tastes. Oshii takes liberties with Shirow's canon, imho.
I keep wondering why Oshii is such a dog person. He should be a Cat Person.
Then again, perhaps not....
Be Seeing You,
Chris
lucky you: no theater nearby will be playing it. I might have to road-trip to Tallahassee to see it.
that is one hoggin' HUGE cat.
enjoy the movie, lemme know if it is worth a 90mile round-trip.
regards,
Mac
I thought it was good too. Not just any old regular asshat, mind you - a flaming asshat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.