The Kerry thing is about depressing turnout
The point of this Kerry thing is not to fire up the Republican base but to depress Democratic turnout and act as a distraction.
That's why the underlying complaint doesn't even have to be plausible. (Hell, the White House isn't even making the argument that he actually meant it as a slur.)
It's about election psychology. Don't buy in.
Later: Finally, the right move. Now, go away for a week.
That's why the underlying complaint doesn't even have to be plausible. (Hell, the White House isn't even making the argument that he actually meant it as a slur.)
It's about election psychology. Don't buy in.
Later: Finally, the right move. Now, go away for a week.
posted by mikevotes at
2:52 PM
8 Comments:
With the exception of the wholy owned neo-Republican cable shows, this story is getting more accurate coverage regarding the nuance of Kerry's flub. I think the Repubs run the risk of losing more credibility if they continue to assert Kerry's quip was directed toward the troops.
Meanwhile, the Dem political machine has got to get the cackling clutch of commentors redirected back to Bush's botched management of a war rather than Kerrys botched delivery of a punch line.
By
-epm, at 3:29 PM
Kerry finally, made the apology and decided to absent himself for awhile. Finally. ANd, you're right that the coverage has generally always mentioned the context and intent, but we're still talking about it. And, again, I don't think they're really trying to "win" an argument here, I think they're trying to accomplish environmental goals.
This also acted as a big momentum killer.
I was wondering today how long the Repubs had been following him with a video camera hunting for that moment.
Also: this followed the standard distribution. First, an unattributed mention on Drudge, picked up by the talk radio folks, dragging the buzz into the media, and then the White House gets to "comment" on the ongoing "controversy." Textbook on how the noise machine runs.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:58 PM
I don't understand why Kerry couldn't have just "apologized" yesterday and gotten this thing over with - now it lives for another news cycle and is the # 1 story on the all newspapers and websites.
Kerry really is an idiot. When he lost in 2004, I was depressed because I was worried about the Supreme Court and the war and a whole host of things. But I remember saying to my girlfriend in the wee hours of the morning that in the long run it was better for Bush to have won because it gave the country the chance to see his economic and war policies taken to their natural conclusions. I think I've been proven right about that (although at the time I was more trying to cheer myself and my girlfriend up than anything else.)
But in retrospect, I now think Kerry would have been one of the most damaging presidents ever. He also would have set the Party back 30 years (to Carter.) Just watching him fuck this stupid fake controversy up makes me realize that he shouldn't be allowed to run ANYTHING. He's too stupid to tie his own shoes, let alone be the "spokesman" for the Democratic Party or president of the United States. Bush is an awful fucking preznit, perhaps the worst ever. But after watching Kerry fuck nearly everything he touches up the last two years, I'm pretty sure Kerry would be ALMOST as bad as Bush.
I think this will now pass after tomorrow. But in the meanwhile, instead of putting the GOPers on the defensive over the Sadr City thing, all the news people are talking about is John Fucking Kerry.
Thanks, John.
BTW, Anybody want to bet he shows up and says something tomorrow to keep it alive in the news cycle one more day?
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 6:03 PM
Ahem... and never come back.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 9:12 PM
rbe, you're right on target with Kerry. He wouldn't have been quite as bad as Bush (I doubt he'd have chipped away at habeas corpus), but we'd still be in Iraq.
BTW, I don't buy for a second that he flubbed a barb against Bush. I think he meant exactly what he said. And I don't think it's much of an exaggeration. Lots of kids in Iraq are there because of a poor education and poor job prospects. If he'd had balls, he would have made a point of that instead of pretending he was joking.
Still, it was a dumb thing to say a week before an election.
By
abi, at 9:50 PM
Reality, I think the Republicans caught him in a jiujitsu. Over and over Kerry has said and been told that he should've fought the Swift Boat attacks, so, when the Republicans applied just a little mocking pressure, his response was predictable.
And, really, the most damaging president ever? I think his policies would've been generally bland, and his presidency would've been largely forgettable. Although, I would agree that he would've been a constant punching bag and that wouldn't have been pretty.
I don't think he shows back up. I think the party elders got to him today and explained the landscape and threatened his ego driven 08 run if he didn't apologize and disappear. I may have too much respect for Howard Dean, but I see his fingerprints on Kerry's sudden turn.
.....
Abi, I don't know. My sense is that it really was a badly delivered line, but that doesn't really matter, because there is the truth you speak about out there, that alot of the soldiers are in Iraq because that's the best opportunity available. I think that's why this whole thing worked because it echoed Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11.
And, after all the other majors had been so careful and coordinated for months, Pelosi, Dean, Clinton.... Hell, even Ted Kennedy has gone underground, Kerry's ego and '08 run show up to fuck things up.
He deserves all the scorn he's getting.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:56 PM
Kerry's plan for Iraq was essentially this: I'll do the same as Bush is doing, but better.
So if he had been elected, the last two years of chaos would be on the Democrats watch and the party would be in very serious trouble as a result.
Let's hope people have the good sense not to nominate him in '08.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:57 AM
Praguetwin, he was dead as an '08 candidate from the time he announced his intention. The Democratic grass roots blame him personally for the '04 loss. He didn't have a chance before, and this didn't help.
And on the what if game, I think he would've maintained presence but probably looked for more political accomodation. Whether that would've changed anything, I don't know. It probably wouldn't have stopped the Samarra bombing, although it might have made the ground less fertile for the militias. We would still be roughly where we are today.
The early mistakes in Iraq were just too big, and the US's understanding of the battlefield too poor.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home