William Pitt at Truthout: The Trial of John Kerry (Amazing Editorial)

You be the judge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

The Trial of John Kerry
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 10 December 2003

One of these days, this will be a textbook case for political science professors to use as a teaching tool.

Here is a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office in a year when the liberal base of the party is almost completely unified in its disgust for the sitting Republican President. The candidate, a Senator, has a 20-year liberal voting record to admire: He is peerless on the environment, a staunch defender of a woman’s right to choose, completely reliable across the whole spectrum of gay rights issues, totally solid on education, an advocate for campaign finance reform and health care reform, and will fight to the death to keep Social Security fully funded and reliable. It is the liberal base of the party that turns out to vote in the primaries, so the candidate’s record gives him an immediate advantage.

Add to the scenario a campaign season dominated by foreign policy issues. The candidate is a Vietnam veteran who wears Purple Hearts next to a Bronze and Silver Star, giving him a ‘real deal’ quality compared to the sitting President, who used family influence to avoid that conflict. The candidate served for several years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, affording him the justifiable claim that he is a seasoned professional when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.

This experience is tempered by wisdom and hard knowledge; the disgust and horror experienced by the candidate during Vietnam had an almost mythic quality, and led him to become a prominent voice against the war upon his return home, so much so that he earned a spot on Nixon’s infamous “Enemies List.” His service in combat, coupled with his principled stand against the Vietnam war and his time on the Foreign Relations Committee, has forged a whole man. This serves him well in the primaries with fence-sitters, and with people who might think Democrats are “soft on national defense.”

more...

The Trial of John Kerry

Excellent article, Will. I had always wondered why Kerry, among others, voted for the Iraqi War Resolution. Thank you for spelling it out more.

Although I support DK primarily, as I've always said, I'm also an ABB person. I feel a lot better speaking well of Kerry after this, given that some of my Democratic friends support him as well, or want to.

:yourock:

...Kerry told Democrats to "Stop crying in your teacups and get over it" when talking to supporters about the theft of the election in 2000. I'm surprised you missed it. That statement reverberated throughout the base for many days and in fact reverberates still. The vote on the open ended grant of war powers to the boy king was the coup de grâce but the mortal wound was already there.

Kerry speaks like a beltway insider. All nuance. No fire. All calcualation based on the polls of today with none of the principle.

I had expected to be supporting either Kerry or Edwards. Instead, I am supporting Dean. This is not complicated. All the "kool kids" are too smart for their own good and are making it too complicated by half.

All calcualation based on the polls of today with none of the principle.

I don't know if that is true. I think he has some worthwhile ideas that are valid that aren't based on polls. I also think he takes pro-active steps toward certain issues without the motivation of polls.

But other than that, I understand where you are coming from.

To the actual speech where he said that? I've never seen it so there is no way to know the way it was said.

Such as, it's time for us to quit sitting around and crying in our teacups, get over it... and fight back!!! That's the Kerry I know. Don't sit around crying in your teacups and doing nothing, get up and take it to them and show them we won't be stopped.

.... was when I took Kerry off my list also. It is perhaps the most insensitive, arrogant thing a pol could have said under the circumstances. I expect that sort of rhetoric to be used against Bush*, not people who are supporters.

for use of force. Dean said he would have voted for Biden-Lugar at the time. We still would have been in Iraq by Bush's 'determination' and Dean would be considered a 'warmonger' here at DU.

And Kerry nails it on the head: whatever he voted for or against, if he was president, we would not be in Iraq. That's what we're choosing: a President, not a senator. One would think that 20-odd years of a record would be enough evidence of a man's character and good will, but this whole primary has been dominated by one event, while the quality of the people involved is largeley being left out. And that's one way that you lose elections: allow something besides winning to dominate one's decision calculus. Does anyone doubt Kerry's politcal beliefs? His judgement? His knowledge? Nope. But still, he must be punished for one vote. It's not rational to me.

Does anyone doubt Kerry's political beliefs? His judgement? His knowledge? Nope.

Don't speak for me. I certainly do doubt Kerry's political beliefs. He voted for the war! It wasn't simply a mistake in judgement, it was a statement of values. We found out who John Kerry really is.

Is it fair to judge a candidate by one vote? You betcha! Especially that vote.

I have serious doubts regarding the Senators who gave so much power to such an obvious moron and his power mad henchfolk. Kerry should have known better. * had more than shown his true colors both during Selection 2000 and immediately afterwards. Plus, whether anybody in Congress wants to admit it or not, the blunders (to put it euphemistically) preceding 9/11 were glaringly obvious.

I like Senator Kerry and would gladly vote for him for President however when he said the other day that he would put James Baker in his Administration I start to question his judgement and his knowlege. James Baker is a huge LIAR and Hypocrite. He is one of the Bad Guys and I find it highly offensive that he would even be considered for a position in a Democratic Administration. His "Get Over It" comment showed how out of touch he is with the base. I don't believe the base can ever "Get Over It" on the theft of Democracy by the Felonious Five and present occupants of the Whitehouse. They are criminals and Senator Kerry seems oblivious to that fact.

But I alway read them.

And you continue to teach me. :thumbsup:

Excellent as usual, Wills.

there was a quote of Sen. Kerry that matched his current explanation regarding inspectors.

I think he may, indeed, be the "most qualified" candidate. I just don't think he's the most electable. Part of my thinking on that stems from the following:

I think the point about Dean not being in Congress is incredibly valid. It may say far more about current presidential politics than Will intended (perhaps). Remember, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and sonofBush were never in Congress. Interestingly, when I talk to the swing voters in my life, they are more open to Dean and Clark than to Kerry and Gehphardt. I suspect that their "newness" leaves them less "tarnished" in the eyes of these voters. It's hardly fair, but it's an issue nonetheless.

There's 5 or 6 speeches, from Sept 2002 on, where he repeatedly said he ONLY wanted to hold Saddam accountable for his weapons.

And frankly, we've had pretty shitty government since Jimmy Carter. Maybe it's time to get someone in the White House who knows how to get things done. Like JFK and LBJ. They accomplished more for this country in their 8 years than has been accomplished in all the years since.

I haven't seen that. I'm fairly certain that's what I asked for in my first post. I don't think it was confusing.

I've no doubt that Kerry would be a fine president. I just think one or two of the other Dems would be better and are more electable. It's not a knock on Kerry. It's my preference.

have voted for. But he voted to give a fraudulent president unlimited power to wage war. My problem with the democrats in the senate is that they failed us in 2000 to begin with. I never sensed that Kerry cared about the stolen election. In fact he was quite flippant about it.

Then he "trusted" bush more than his own constituents. He seems to believe that his thinking on all issues is superior to ours. He takes no instruction from those that have the power to hire and fire him. The problem is not that he made mistakes along the way, but rather why he made the mistakes. He just feels he knows better than the rest of us.

Dean (and I am not a Dean supporter yet)on the other hand has responded to the people supporting him. He shows respect for their ideas and opinions. I am still worried about his actual political leanings, he is rather centrist. However I must give him credit for making people feel empowered where Kerry made people feel impotent.

Clark trumps Kerry on international policy and military experience so he can't really gain traction there.

If Kerry had done what Byrd did on the senate floor, if he had been right like Byrd rather than wrong... he'd have this nomination all sewn up by now. But he didn't and he doesn't and I think that is how history will tell the story.

That's exactly how they sit at Skull and XBones meetings!
I knew it!

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Nice writing Will, as always.

you're funny. :-)

Will's work just keeps getting better.

...informative, insightfull, thoughtfull. Thanks.

...and it was critically important. The fact that he signed it makes his judgement questionable regardless of his rationalizations. Read the document and ask yourself if anyone who signed it could retain any credibility. It does raise the question of the value of his foreign policy experience when he enabled the regime in office to carry on such a destructive foreign policy. It did throw his whole admirable political career in a poor light. There is an old saying, "One ah shit wipes out a thousand attaboys."

But that is not the only thing hampering Kerry. The rest is image. His aloof Brahmin disposition. His rigid style and pompous overbearing affect. He doesn't ring true with the common people. I would describe him as stiff and rigid. I know these traits well and have viewed the reactions of ordinary people to them first hand.

Kerry's most effective moment campaign wise was when he said, "You haven't seen Kerry gone wild" or words to that effect.

another excellent piece

:kick:

His pathetic attempts to distance himself from his own vote by whining that he was deceived by Bush just makes him even more contemptible.

He has proven himself to be just another politician who decided to follow the current trend and play it safe. He lost the gamble and thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans paid for it with their lives.

I'm surprised at the number of apologists for him and the other 3 bush collaborators on this board.

If you look at John Kerry's record besides the IWR vote, you'd find that he has a history of doing the right thing and resisting trends. He is NOT just another politician. He voted for the IWR because he thought it was the right thing, not because he was running for President.

If you think that Dean or Clark is a different kind of politician, you're crazy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

that unfortunate little tussle in Vietnam.

If he voted for IWR because "he thought it was the right thing", then that puts him in the same camp as Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz.

I don't believe for a moment that he voted for IWR because he thought it was "right". I believe that it was a cynical, calculated, political move. It backfired.

BTW - up until the IWR vote I was a rather avid Kerry backer. Now he won't get my vote even if he should get the nomination.

at the total record of every other Dem running you'll find a vote on something that would make you decide you could never vote for them either.

And no, that does not put him in the same camp as Bush, Cheney, or Wolfowitz. He is a liberal Democrat, not a neo-conservative Republican.

If you wanna believe the worst about Kerry, fine, but I'd like to convince you that there was more to that IWR vote than pro/anti war.

Nice piece, well written. If I were running for office I'd want you on my side :)

But there is one observation I have to make.

I get frustrated with folks who try to make this a race based on policies and the record. That is not what people vote for. It matters, but what people really vote for, IMHO, is a person.

By person I mean personality. Is there passion, are there oratory skills and debate skills, is there conviction, persuasiveness, judge of character, honesty?

I think that Kerry certainly possess *some* of those things, but by no means all. His race has floundered not only because of that ill-fated vote, but because he simply does not convince us that he "gets" just how wrong he was, and how seriously many take the whole issue.

When he says he "trusted Bush*", my question would be "why"? At that point, it was already clear what kind of man Bush* was. I don't want a president who could not see something so bloody, blatantly obvious. And to be really honest, I don't believe he couldn't see it.

That was VERY accurate. Good post.

Fact is that Kerry is not getting a fair shake.

The war resolution vote was a betrayal. He pissed off Democrats in order to maintain credibility with Republicans. He got a fair shake.

...and that Kerry is the perfect candidate on paper to oppose Bush. But when the chips were down and he had to make a difficult decision, he CHOSE POORLY. Kerry decided to trust Bush. That poor choice has ruined his chances to be President, probably forever in my opinion.

What I'd like to ask Kerry is why in hell didn't he just come out at the beginning of this Democratic nominating process and SAY HE'D BEEN WRONG TO TRUST BUSH? Had he done that a long time ago, he'd be the front-runner now.

Instead, he has unfortunately waffled and weaseled his way through poorly thought-out answers to this key question of why he voted for the Iraq resolution (sounding oh so Clintonesqe in the process). He never once just simply admitted his mistake. In my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of many other democrats, this demonstrates an inability to make difficult decisions. It shows that at best Kerry has a tendency to overthink things and at worst is simply another calculating Senator. It shows that Kerry forgot his primary role in the Senate, which is to OPPOSE. Opposition is the main job of the minority party in Congress. The GOP knows this lesson all too well. The Democrats apparently still have yet to learn it, as demonstrated by Kerry's foolish and naive vote.

I like Kerry. He's a good guy and would make a great president, even if he IS terrible on television. But he failed to show backbone at a critical time, at a time when backbone was needed to counter the dangerously radical Bush agenda. I need a candidate who has the balls to fight Bush, who is well aware of the evil of the Bush agenda and votes accordingly.

The fight for the nomination isn't over yet but let's face it, it'll take a miracle to dislodge Dean.

By the way, very good article. Keep up the good work, Will.

The collapse of Kerry's candidacy won't be a textbook case because it's straightforward: when you offend your constituency, they're not going to vote for you.

The vote on the war was not simply a mistake in judgement, it was a statement of values. Kerry was worried about Kerry, not about his responsibilities as a Senator. We don't need a guy like this in the White House.

He made a serious error in judgement. The whole world suffers now because of these spineless senators (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards?, Clinton). All looking out for themselves.