KERRY and his "lack" of an IRAQ Plan

Hear me out. Please note that I put quotes around the word "lack." This is because Kerry did have an Iraq plan.

The reason I bring this is up is because in talking to many Bush supporters who were uneasy about voting for him, it occurred to me that Kerry lost these voters (for the most part) not because of his Iraq War vote but b/c they said he didn't have a plan for Iraq.

I'm not going to pretend that Kerry's initial vote (and more damagingly, his $87 billion vote) didn't hurt him. Frankly, I don't think the IWR resolution vote hurt him so much as the $87 billion-vote. Most people I know were willing to accept that somebody could change their mind over the war after having voted for it. The $87 billion-vote hurt Kerry more for the people I talked to. The Kerry campaign made a major failure in not properly explaining this vote to people. In hindsight, it may have been better to have voted for the $87 billion, even though Dean would have pounded on him for it at the time (that's not a slam at Dean - that's simply truth. Dean slammed Gephardt mercilessly after he voted for the $87 billion).

MORE significant that those 2 votes, however, for most of the people I talked to, was the impression that Kerry couldn't do anything to fix Iraq. People would constantly say "he had no plan for Iraq" or "his plan is the same as Bush's." Kerry DID have a plan for Iraq, but the truth is that it was quite close to Bush's stated plan.

Whereas the Kerry campaign's handling of the $87 billion-vote is more open to criticism, the truth is that I don't see how the Kerry campaign could have realistically altered the second situation. The truth is that Iraq is in such a bad situation, that any plan that MIGHT work is going to look very similar in writing. That's not a coincidence - it's a result of Bush's f*cking up leading to a complete lack of good alternatives. And when you had "experts" analyzing how to win in Iraq, they'd also criticize BOTH Bush and Kerry then offer a plan that looked remarkably similar to Kerry's.

Moreover, pundits would constantly carp on Kerry for lacking a plan on Iraq. Funny, I never saw the pundits coming up with a plan of their own.

Simply put, for many wavering Bush supporters, they wanted a magic solution to the Iraq conflict and when Kerry offered a plan that was somewhat similar to Bush's plan, they'd claim that Kerry wasn't offering a difference.

So what could Kerry have done? Certainly there will be some that would advocate outright withdrawal. However, note that of the candidates, only Kucinich advocated this - even Dean did not. And moreover, while personally I think withdrawal needs to be studied and may eventually be the only option, withdrawal at this point would probably be disastrous. Unlike Vietnam, there is no central power that could take control.

Personally, I think Kerry should have made a statement like this at the debates:

"The President's plan and my plan are not identical. There are some key differences on international cooperation and military strategy, for example. However, there is an element of truth in the President's claim that our plans are the same. The truth is they are somewhat similar. That's not a coincidence. It's a reflection of the fact that there are very few good options left in Iraq. The situation is critical. There is no magic solution to be found. With so few alternatives, every plan is going to look relatively similar. What I offer you is different, more responsible, leadership. Time and time again, this administration has made catastrophically wrong decisions. Time and time again, they have exhibited unbelievable incompetence. And time and time again, they go against their own plans. We have to now look to the future. If a surgeon botches your surgery, do you go back the same surgeon to fix the mistake? By the same token, Who are you going to trust to carry out the painstakingly difficult work of winning this war? The man who broke it in the first place or a man who promises a fresh start?"

Of all the maddening things about Kerry's campaign, the one thing that I could never figure out was why Kerry never once brought up Bush's veto threat on the first $87 billion vote. It was such an obvious counter to the flip-flop charge on that particular issue.

plus Bob Shrum said that negative ads tunr people off. What a f-cking loser. Has he been living in a cave all these decades not to know about negative ads?

plan ever seen, and communicated it like Moses coming down from the mountains, and people would still prefer the Republicans on national security, because Democrats have no credibility on the subject.

According to the exit polls, Kerry won big with people whose primary concern was Iraq, so I really don't think the plan thing hurt him, anyway. The election came down to two things 1) the economy wasn't great, but at the same time, no president in history has lost with a similar one; and 2) people didn't trust Kerry on national defense.

There's nothing anyone can do about the first one, but the second one is, I believe, more a branding issue than a Kerry issue, since every Democrat suffers from it, and Kerry was actually one of the stronger candidates Democrats have put forth on national security in recent memory. In fact, I can't think of a better one unless you go back to Truman in 1948 -- after he'd served as president for close to 4 years.

rigged election.

I tend to agree. Still, I feel that had we communicated on Iraq and National Security somewhat earlier we could have eked out a win. My own feeling is that the election, in hindsight, was bound to be close and Bush had a slight advantage. I think that had Kerry in May acted like he acted during the final 6 weeks of the campaign, he would have won. And I think had he made the statement I made in my post, I think he would have shored up support on national security.

But I do think our twin goals as a party are 1) Increasing our support in rural/exurban areas by developing a stronger narrative and being more explicit in support of our values, and 2) Improving our position on defense. The moral-values vote was not the be-all-and-end-all of the campaign, but I think it did a play a large role in Kerry's loss in Ohio (okay, okay - for those who think Kerry won Ohio, then at least he didn't win it by enough for it to be kept from being stolen), and possibly Florida, where he was crushed in the panhandle and Tampa area. The national security vote, though, probably cost Kerry votes in Central Florida.

Of course, ensuring the integrity of our elections is important. Personally, I think Kerry did lose. I have yet to see any truly credible evidence beyond exit polls that the election was stolen. However, it is wrong in this country for anyone to have to doubt that their vote was cast. There needs to be verifiable voting. Period.

It is more than 10 words.

Sad but true.

to listen. The biggest difference, of course, is that many other world leaders would LISTEN to Kerry and TRUST his word. That is something that will not happen with Bush, but, the media downplayed that and actually mocked Kerry for that assertion.