Kerry changes stance, takes on Dean

Kerry changes stance, takes on Dean
New campaign tactic highlights differences between candidates
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 9/4/2003


The debate within the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry about how to deal with Howard Dean is over.

As he tries to reinvigorate his Democratic candidacy for the presidency, Kerry has made it clear he is not going to wait and see if Dean's surging campaign will fade. Since Sunday, the Massachusetts senator has criticized the former Vermont governor, who leads in the latest polls in New Hampshire, for his opposition to the Iraq war, lack of government experience in foreign policy, economic plans, and membership in the National Rifle Association.

The Dean campaign says the attacks are being driven by one fact: Kerry's loss of his front-runner status, which some media outlets ascribed to him earlier in the year.

"They ignored us for seven months; now they're attacking us," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. "I don't think it's a surprise why. . . . They're doing this because things aren't going so well for their campaign. I'm sorry. That's not my problem."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT
\snip\

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/

1. it should be interesting to see what, if any backlash, comes from attacking Dean. not only that but, maybe even more importantly, what that does to Dean's popularity. Every time he's been attacked so far -- by the DLC, by Lieberman, Russert, etc. - he's gone UP in the polls, generated buzz, and seen increases in fundraising totals.

The way Kerry says 'Dean opposition to the war was wrong' is NOT going to sit well with Dean supporters, as well as others who are not necessarily for Dean, but who didn't support the war, either.

2. Teresa should take Jim Jordan's job, or Chris Lehane's, or whomever else is responsible for the sorry state of the campaign itself (not the candidate, the campaign).

argument. . ."What do we do about Dean?"

By taking him on in this fashion, he's still allowing Dean to frame the debate. "Dean's opposition to the war was wrong" immediately brings up the question "WHY? HOW WAS IT WRONG?" - when Dean's opposition, and the reasons for it are pretty godamm sensible and clear and have thus far proven far more correct than anyone else's. Most especially anyone who voted for the Iraqi resolution that abdicated Constitutionally-given powers of the Congress to the Executive Branch.

I like John Kerry (Frenchy-looking though he may be - JUST KIDDING) but if he's gonna switch tactics in such an obvious, heavy-handed manner he's gonna make us all forget Gore's alpha male turnaround.

Talk to us, John. Talk to us like we're real live people. Don't tell us what's wrong with Howard Dean. Tell us what's wrong with George Bush. And if part of THAT is admitting you were snookered by a post 9/11 fervor for war, at least level with us.

eileen from OH

One of the reasons that Howard Dean resonates with the public so much was his opposition to the war. So now Kerry is trying to be both anti-war (Bush did it wrong) and pro-war (Saddam needs to be confronted). I think that may resonate with....maybe Joe Lieberman, I don't know.

I've been staying well away from the Dean/Kerry slugfest around here. I always told myself that although I like Dean better, I'd happily vote for John Kerry. Well, I would still probably vote for Kerry if he got the nomination, but this statement by Kerry has tainted him in my eyes. I don't have as much respect for him anymore.

Shame on you, John Kerry.

...what, was it 24 or 25 hours after announcing candidacy before he bashed another member of the party???

It seems reasonable for Dean and Kerry to point out their differences. What is fairly surreal, however, is Kerry's attempt paint Dean as antiwar and Dean's attempt to accept the label since it appears their positions aren't quite the polar opposites they would have us believe. Should make for an intersting debate tomorrow.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

<edit>

"<A>s I've said about eight times today," <Dean> says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

<edit>

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/sprj.irq.democrats.ap/

Dean first to single out Democratic presidential rivals for criticism

Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 11:09 AM EST (1609 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Howard Dean has brought an end to the polite public tone of the Democratic presidential primary by singling out John Kerry's position on Iraq.

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, and Dean, former governor of Vermont, are virtually tied for the lead among nine Democrats in a recent poll of New Hampshire voters.

Dean has gained support among anti-war voters for his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and in recent days has ramped up his criticism that Kerry's stance has been unclear.

"To this day I don't know what John Kerry's position is," Dean said Thursday in a speech to Iowa activists. "If you agree with the war, then say so. If you don't agree with the war, then say so, but don't try to wobble around in between."

Kerry has said he will not respond to Dean. His spokesman Robert Gibbs would not comment either, other than to say, "Democrats are disappointed that Howard Dean has decided to use a war for political gain and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way."

more...

Kerry has said he will not respond to Dean.

...did they leave out the "unless he trails by 21 or more percentage points"?

that's kind of how politics works. The frontrunner feigns disgust at the "brutal" (choose your adjective) attacks frontrunner status brings and then attacks when/if no longer the frontrunner. If Dean weren't leading in the latest polls, I think it's fair to imagine he'd be attacking Kerry far more vigorously than he did in the article I posted.

In all honesty, I don't think people should be offended when the Democratic candidates point out their differences. Happens every four years like clockwork and gives the voters information on which to base their vote. Surely you don't want them deciding based on what they're told by Candy Crowley?

...I just wish that they would pounce Bush and not each other.

Yesterday, I vowed to the local Democratic Chairman that I would not say an unkind word about any other Dems, if any should run in the primary against me.

So, I must have been feeling too big for my britches. Thanks for explaining your position in the kind manner that you chose.

It's good for candidates to point out differences on the issues, but they don't need to be unkind to each other. Certainly some of the threads here at DU show that unrestrained attacks can lead to the creation of barriers that make allies think they're adversaries. After all, while we're all going to work as hard as we can for our candidate, we'll all be united against Bush in the general election.

Best of luck in your run for Congress. If you have time, keep us updated on your progress.

Wasn't the UN trying to enforce its resolution? Isn't that why the inspectors were in Iraq?

We didn't let the UN enforce the resolution. Instead we went in unilaterally, which was WRONG.

Ergo, the war was WRONG and Dean is right.

"<A>s I've said about eight times today," <Dean> says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

illustrates to me why Dean is not the "anti-war candidate."

Call me crazy but isn't this pretty much what the Bush admin did and what we protested against?

Once again, we protested because:

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda
Iraq did not pose an imminent threat upon the U.S.
No evidence was presented for this rush to war.
The war against Iraq was a PNAC wet dream.
The war against Iraq was illegal.
The war against Iraq was probably about oil and nothing else.


Does this comment seem not to make sense to anyone else?

In reading U.N. Resolution 1441 it has 15 parts. A general statement and 14 conditions. It states in the General statement that Iraq was making progress towards disarmament, slowly though. Because no WMD have been found, the U.S. viloated 5 of the sections of the resoultion. Iraq violated none so far. If it is found that Iraq has WMD, not to be confused with programs, then Iraq violated or may I use the phrase "material breech" resolution 1441. If it is found that Iraq was purchasing WMD and did not report it, or the selling country did not report it, then it is a violation of 1441. This is why the Iraq- Niger thing is such an issue. Once again is was found to be a lie by the administration. Violation of the resoultion was to be decided by the U.N. and the degree to which it was violated. Dr. Blix repoting to the U.N. was the key to this.

Dean said in a radio interview on 8/25/03 that he will go to war if the U.S. is threatened and a clear plan from start to end, along with a justification for all parts of the war are presented. This is why he is criticl of the Bush administration, they lied about the reasons for war, and they have no clear plan. The U.S. violated resolution 1441, not Iraq. He has also stated that when you go into war, you get as much help from the international community as possible, Bush did not. This is another issue he has with the current administration. There is tremendus strength in gentelness, Bush does not have that. I believe every Dem candidate out there would go to war if it was right to do so. Iraq was not justifiable in most peoples minds. Bush got caught in his lie about Niger-Iraq uranium on 3/7/03 as reported by Reuters news service. 10 days later he got out of the meeting in the Azores and on the 20th the war started. He gave Hussein 48 hrs to give up WMD that so far don't exist. Hussein was in complience with the U.N. He was not out of complience for 30-60 days. The war was not justified at all. Bush had an emergency meetin in the Azores which concluded 3 days before the war started. He was caught in his lie but moved so fast to start the war that the course could not be reversed.

It does make sense

They've long been advocates of the mantra that Dean supporters should shut up and learn from Kerry.

I hope that all and any Dean supporters that read this realize the Rovian game that the Kerry supporters have been playing. Oooh, let's just all get along...yeah right, they knew that they had the mainstream media in their pockets and hoped to lull us asleep.

Now is not the time to hold back criticism of this political wind checker...the elites(including the DLC) are behind him and he will be beholden to them. The mainstream press is behind him because they are slaves of the elites. He will lose! The American people are not going to throw out GWB for a guy that has helped GWB get his way.

I wish all the candidates would just bash Bush instead of each other. After all, the one you bash might end up being your running mate. I feel solidarity is better. We have a real job to do to win this next election. It gives the Repubs ammunition.

But if Kerry is going to attack Dean for his opposition to the war in Iraq, then Kerry lied again when he gave what I thought was a good announcement speech over the weekend.

Kerry is the only politician that believes that his vote for the Iraq war resolution was a vote for the UN, not war.

Personally, I don't trust any man with a $75 haircut. For people that live paycheck-to-paycheck and that have to hold more than one job to make ends meet, paying $75 for a haircut is an extravagant luxury reserved for those born into a life of privilege.

Published on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes
by Stephen Zunes

In a speech on the Senate floor immediately prior to the October vote, Senator Kerry categorically stated that Saddam Hussein was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons.” However, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that Iraq had had an active nuclear program for at least eight to ten years prior to the U.S. invasion. Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in 1998 and subsequently that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled.

To justify his claims of an Iraqi nuclear threat, Senator Kerry claimed that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.” The reality, of course, was that much of the U.S. intelligence community was highly skeptical of claims that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials.

Indeed, despite unfettered access by IAEA inspectors to possible Iraqi nuclear facilities between this past November and March and exhaustive searching by U.S. occupation forces since then, no trace has been found of the ongoing Iraqi nuclear program that Senator Kerry claimed existed last fall.

In addition, Senator Kerry stated unequivocally that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” He even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” He did not try to explain how this could be possible, given the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990.

The Massachusetts senator also asserted that authorizing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country was necessary since “These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

...a nominee who has torn down another Democrat.

...you got slim pickens in this primary...

All that aside, I winced when I first read this. I'm one of those that thinks that overall Kerry is a "good man" who wants to do "good things", and I'd likely vote for him were he the nominee. But what's with Kerry saddling up to Lieberman? Is the DLC just figuring it can go down the list and send out cannon fodder in defense of its misbegotten support for war? If Kerry was counting on his saying this crippling Dean's support, or garnering supporters for himself, I think it was a poor decision.

How do those Kerry supporters who had to make the tough decision to support him despite his actions and statements regarding Bush's War(v2) feel about his telling them they were wrong? Most of them advocated for letting the inspections run their course. Many of them might even have gone so far as to write lengthy essays outlining the reasons why pre-emptive invasion and occupation was not a wise course of action. Granted, there are issues that I disagree with any given candidate on, Dean among them, but concerning the issues I care about most, he hasn't flat out told me my position was "wrong".

That's enough. All we need is another flame fest between Kerry and Dean supporters. It's really discouraging. Is there any real doubt as to why so many people don't bother to vote?

As he has done that repeatedly over the past few months and had to apoligize for it ...

on your own embarrassment.

And this is from a Dean supporter who has become deeply disillusioned with Kerry. There are plenty of legitimate and substantive reasons to knock him - this is neither.

Contradicting what he said in the speech in which he announced he was running for President, John Kerry is now saying that Dean, and by extension millions of Americans and people around the world, were wrong in opposing the Iraq war.

Here is the quote from this increasingly waffling and untrustworthy candidate:

As his campaign plane flew from Iowa to New Hampshire yesterday morning, Kerry told reporters, "Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong." Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who needed to be confronted, just with more diplomacy than the Bush administration tried.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/

There is a real fundamental issue at stake here that is bigger than Democratic primary politics: Does the US want to give itself the right to engange in unilateral preventive wars whenever the President says so. Dean has come down firmly on the right side of this argument. Kerry can't change that basic fact.

"Kerry told reporters, "Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong." Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who needed to be confronted, just with more diplomacy than the Bush administration tried."

In other words, be a smarter neocon. Loser position.

I was opposed to the war and I'm pretty damn sure I'm RIGHT!!! I told my wife in January that we'd have 200,000 troops in Iraq for ten years. And I'm looking a lot closer to the mark than all those neocon geniuses AND Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards.

Kerry drops a couple points on my scale.

insiders that voted for the war on Iraq. He can only come out looking like Bush lite.

and Bush? Could it be that his foreign policies have more in common with Bush than Dean?

Don't expect much in the way of justice from these D.C. insiders regarding War Crimes, 9/11, anthrax, the Florida voting debacles, Enron, etc. The reason why there has been so little real opposition to the GOP in Congress (but a lot of grandstanding) and so few legal repercussions for the crimes we've witnessed under Bush is that, like the policies in Iraq, there are no significant differences. Larger forces are at work behind the scenes that endorse a mutual goal, if not all the tactics.
I think it might be summed up as the corporate elite plan for globalization. Privatization, for instance, seems as much a Dem as GOP policy directive because that is what corporations want. The same with NAFTA and jobs. Both parties have supported this (either by directly advocating it, or quiet lack of opposition).

Perhaps we ought to be drafting someone who spells all this out and offers alternative ideas than the ones that have been failing us.

problems, which are pretty severe, don't you think? Dean has run state government very well and knows how to do this. Clinton also came from a small state and was pretty successful at foreign policy (IMO). There is plenty of opportunity to put together foreign policy experts in a cabinet and also include a VP that might have
more experience (e.g., Clark/military).

"For governors, Howard Dean has zero experience in international affairs."

I don't think criticizing the anti-war stance of Dean is going to help with the Dem base. I think that Dean found an issue that really excited the base, and it may be wise for Kerry not to play up his support for Bush's war.

On the other hand, I think Kerry does have a point about his experience with foriegn policy and Dean's lack of this experience.

All in all - I like both men, but I don't want to see too much backbiting because that plays into the GOPs hands.

Dean '04...

There are a lot of folks (particularly union guys) who are the "proud to be American" guys who would like to get out of Iraq but have no love for someone who didn't 'support' the war (they equal that with 'didn't support the troops'). There seems to be an assumption here that ALL Dems are anti-war. Bush could never have gotten those 75% approval ratings as we went into the invasion if a hell of a lot of Dems didn't join in. Yep, he will alienate Dean supporters....but, duh, that's why they are called "Dean supporters"; they are not and will not vote for Kerry. Why should he try to play to them. It's like the age-old argument here of whether the Dems should become all Green and fuzzy to pick up some Greens. You can bet that a lot of Geps' union men are NOT in love with an anti-war candidate (if they were, his union positions would not have been enough to get their support). He's also trying to appeal to an audience that before thought there was no big deal for a governor to run the country---but now in the time of some real crisis, the "gov" is one big inept fuck up. So, it's a good time to put out, in essence, a "we don't need another inexperienced with national/foreign affairs" person in charge. It's a good strategy. And there will be people coughing up a lot of dough at the already set 25 frund raising dinners on his plate for the next few weeks. There's more than one horse in this race, you know; and you can bet if things get tight, Dean will come out swinging, too.

Some people are making the mistake of rejecting any candidate that voted for the resolution while at the same time, expecting that those who did vote for the resolution will try to get their vote by opposing the Iraqi invasion.

Hint: If you write a candidate of based on one of their positions, then it's you who has eliminated any chance of compromise.

Criticizing Dean is the LAST way you want to win over Dean supporters.

Man, I'm sorry for anyone supporting him here, but this guy is just fugging stupid.

Unless maybe he and Lieberbush want to run on the same ticket together.

supporters. There are a lot more Dems out there and they are by no means all Dean supporters. He would be dumb to play for Dean supporters and the rest of the crowd, except may Dennis, is not playing for Dean supporters.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

NYer99
DU Moderator

And most Dems want to know that a candidate can take on Bu$h -- not other Dems.

I think well of Mr. K (I know his younger brother), but he's making a mistake here. Hopefully, he will see his error -- Kerry has always known about & respected the idea of party loyalty.