This is why the Democrats voted against the Hunter tactic (so angry!)

Iraq a Tricky Issue for Ambitious Democrats By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry initially voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President Bush to explain his strategy for success in Iraq. Minutes later, the Democrat changed his vote.

snip...

Senators vote several times a year on spending bills that pay for the war, and sometimes on Iraq resolutions like the two the Senate considered last week.

A Democratic measure, which the Senate rejected, called for a timetable for withdrawing troops. A Republican alternative, which the Senate ultimately passed, urged the Bush administration to explain "its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq" but omitted a timetable.

Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential candidate who is said to be considering another run, first voted for the GOP resolution. He then left the chamber and was seen just steps off the Senate floor talking briefly to his senior home state colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Kerry walked back into the chamber and changed his vote.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, said Republicans weakened the resolution "late in the game," and "Sen. Kerry mistakenly believed strong language demanding benchmarks and timetables was still intact. Our troops deserve better than half measures, and that's why John Kerry voted against it."

Before the vote, the Senate debated the main difference between the two measures — one called for a timetable and the other didn't. In his floor statement, Kerry said he intended to vote against the GOP resolution partly because it lacked a timetable.

Last month, Kerry called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, starting with 20,000 returning home after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. He is one of several senators considering a presidential run who have recently recommended changing Bush's Iraq policy.

snip...

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Taking the opposite view, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., advocated a "clear and stay" strategy in which troops rid an area of insurgents and then secure it. Though it would mean more troops and money, it has "the best chance of success," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051125/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq


Pushing the Republicans much? :grr:

Kerry's plan is clear and his position with the vote has never changed?

with many still saying voting for it at least called for a change. My guess is you could defend either a no or a yes. The problem may be that getting something stronger as the war becomes even less popular may be harder - as the Republicans can say they already did it.

What is weird is they spend more time on a change in the vote while changes were allowed. Did they cover McCain doing the same on the clantestine prisons vote? No. Out of all the summaries, his plan was described the least well. So, coupled with the implication that he needed Senator Kennedy to tell him what to do this is unfair. (Compare what they say with Biden - Kerry was making those points better in 2004!)

Repeat: McCain strongly opposes torture.

How does this writer justify lumping Kerry's detailed plan in with a statement by Biden and Clinton?

Then she goes on to say:

Other Democrats' positions have been more clear cut.

Followed by:

The two Republican senators who have taken arguably the most aggressive positions on Iraq also weighed in recently.

"Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb. "The United States should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year."

Aggressive?


It's this kind of gaming and conjecture by the media that got us into this mess.

This is just a very poorly written article. It's not even clear who the other Democrats are - as the only one then mentioned is Feingold.
This seriously needs an editor. I actually have more problem with them throwing in the vote story as they did - because they are trying to feed the flip/flop nonsense and possibly make it look like he changed only because of Kennedy.

Although I have read Biden's plan - of the others, Kerry's and McCain's clearly are the most detailed and thought out. Feingold's was very vague except for the concept of flexible target dates. Edwards seems basically rhetoric without much behind it. Hillary and Hagel do not even pretend to have plans.

The article if awful. The only problem is that since it's the AP, it'll be picked up by the rest of the media.

And, I wasn't aware of Biden's plan.

or at least it should be.

Kerry has made statement after statement justifying his vote against the Warner amendment. His position is clear.

She is only repeating RW talking points and her article is not worth commenting, except to say the truth: AP reporters should learn about reporting.

Here is a long one talking about our 3 reps who voted for the IWR.

I was not aware there was a rift between these 3 and Kennedy. Am I missing something?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-iraq-massachusetts-dems,1,2781670.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

with Kerry Kennedy. It would seem strange if he was estranged from Ted Kennedy. Also, there one Massachusetts politician they didn't mention in this. If Kennedy was holding the vote against the 3 representatives, why has he supported Kerry so strongly and gone beyond that to say some incredibly nice things about him.

I am not surprised that there was a change of heart. That amendment was nearly the same as the amendment Kerry co-sponsored (and, I think, helped write.) I think it was fifty-fifty on whether or not to vote for it. (It was a kick in the butt to get the Admin to change policy, but the best provisions were left out.)

I don't like the snide implication in the article that this was a purely political thing aimed at '08. I think it was a decision whether or not to vote for a bill that Sen. Kerry felt didn't go far enough.

At a point where nobody else had yet voted no (I think), he came back with Kennedy, voted NO and then Kennedy voted NO. I think others changed their vote afterwards.

Note that Feingold, Clinton, Biden, ... did not change their vote, which makes you wonder on what the writer bases her opinion that it was a political vote. :shrug:

passing was a kick in the butt for the Administration, maybe he wanted it to pass - but preferred not to vote for it because it wasn't as good as it should be. As it began to get enough Republican votes, he switched to "no".

I dont see what the big deal it, except for some empty head reporter at the AP.

Actually, I am more than happy that he voted this way.

about Senator Kerry and flip-flopping. Maybe Senator Kerry should just say "eff it" embrace the Flip-Flop stereotype and proudly wear little flip-flops on his lapel. And when people ask him about them, he should say that he is proud of the fact that he can change his course and his mind, that he is never going to blindly stay on a course of destruction (like some folks we know). He should also use the "whatever direction the wind is blowing" ad to his advantage. Being able to sense danger on the wind is a good thing in a leader. Being able to navigate dangerous currents is a good thing in a leader.

And being able to listen is the most important quality in a leader. Know what is happening in the world, the country and among the people you represent. Decisions can't be a platform. Decisions are made according to the needs in the time they are made. As the needs change, times call for new decisions. THAT is leadership. Anyone idiot can blindly pick a position and adhere to it long after it is viable.

This stuff just makes me so angry. The bill he voted on was changed, so he changed his vote. It should be a no-brainer.

And there should be a distinction between a good flip-flop and a bad flip-flop. Bad flips on position are ones that are done for political gain. For example: a politician who tells one group one thing and then goes and says the exact thing to another politician. Romney does that. McCain does that. The Repugs are great at this kind of behavior. John Kerry only changes his position as times need an upgraded solution to an ongoing problem. His ultimate goal is always steadfast, but sometimes he improves his methodology of getting to the goal. Isn't this technique called ...improvement?

This happens all the time. No one commented when McCain shocked all of us obsessed CSPAN watchers when he first voted against the clandestine prisons amendmant - then we all saw he switched to yes. It also agreed with his floor speech. (so likely a promised change in the text wasn't made.)

As situations change and complications arise, so should minds. (Geez, we used to call that just having smarts.)

Today I asked my brother (a retired-Lowell, MA law enforcement officer - you may relate to this) why he dislikes John Kerry so much. He brought up the Vietnam thing; Kerry's speaking out against the war. (My brother has never served in the armed forces.) Then he said JK bought a house in Lowell only to run for political office, but sold the house and moved from Lowell after losing the election. My brother also said he's always believed Kerry to be an opportunist in it only for glory and personal gain: ambition. If that wasn't enough, he brought up botox!

He even said that we should send John Kerry to Iraq so he can end the war and rule Iraq. I told him that the Senator has been to Iraq twice this year already.

He didn't get to flip-flopping, but I'm certain that was next, right along with wind surfing and being a rich elitist.

So sad. People just don't get it.

It's amazing that he STILL resents Kerry setting up residency in a district so he could run for office. When Kerry finished his service, where was he suppose to move to. Any politiciam who runs for the Presidency has to be ambititious. Seeing that Bush gets a pass on the genuinely bad behavior he exhibited for the first 40 years of his life, it's weird that these things (which weren't unethical, immoral or illegal) are held 30 plus years later against Kerry.

Do you think the district shopping charge carried weight on it's own or because the Sun made an issue of it? If he hadn't protested and he was a young Navy hero and he and his wife bought a house and he ran for office, would people have reacted the same way? Did he ever meet Kerry when they both lived in the same town? As a police officer, what was his reaction to all the harassment the Kerrys suffered - when windows were broken and tires slashed? Were the police or the towns people even aware of all this? Was Lowell in the area he was a proscecutor in?

I know there are people you can never win - for example, I'm sure somewhere on the right there's a very good person - who I would never vote for even if he ran again a candidate I was embarrassed by. (For Senator, I would have voted for Torecelli when it was clear he was disreputable)

I wonder what it is about Kerry that causes people to hate him for decades. The listed things - district shopping, protesting - are pretty minor and certainly not something that for any one else wouldn't be waved of. I'm impressed that you were able to discuss this with him at all - I have a few relatives that I have avoided talking to on politics after I found that they not only voted for Buah but hated Kerry. (We're together for such short times that it seens better to enjoy the time.)

All (and I mean ALL) of the Kerry hating originates with his Vietnam War era public profile.

One thing that was made frustratingly and bizarrely clear to me during the 2004 election is how divisive the Vietnam War continues to be to this day. Every single "character flaw" the right claimed to have discovered in JK was, in my opinion, a red herring. They loathed, hated, and despised him for his antiwar activities, and they resent him for them to this day.

That's what the Swift Boat Liars were all about - they were formed to create a vehicle through which the old and latent hatred for Kerry could be expressed.

Those of us who were around then can remember the level of public hysteria over antiwar protests, particularly antiwar youth. The "generation gap", the whole "don't trust anyone over thirty" meme, the hippies, all of it is rooted in the Vietnam War, and Kerry was both blessed and cursed to be a very very prominent figure in that movement. His prominence remains a blessing and a curse.

At the time Kerry ran for Congress in Lowell it was a very conservative part of the state (it actually still is). The Sun certainly did its part in sinking him, but they were playing on a broader theme abroad at that time. Hating the hippies. The fact that Kerry was not even close to being a hippie made no difference. In those days if your hair was longish and you protested the war, to certain portions of the population you were a hippie, and by definition, drug-addled and a danger to society.

place: very clicky. The Sun was our to get him from the start. There was an interesting article earlier in the year by the editor of the Sun mentioning how, to this day, John Kerry still looks him up and asks how Lowell is doing. Even though the Sun is always been tough on the Senator, the Senator holds no grudges. The editor (I have to look up his name) eats breakfast in the same place on the same day (Sat. or Sun) and John Kerry popped in to say hello after last years election. The article was kinda sad and I think there was a note of regret on the part of the editor. This man was probably responsible for much of the hate, but Kerry always showed him kindness and friendship no matter. I wonder how this man feels now as he watches Bsh destroy our country? It was just a short article and I'd love to read it again if anyone has a copy.

I mentioned all the harassment Kerry received in Lowell to my brother and he had never heard anything about it. He seemed surprised and there was a bit of disbelief, almost as if he thinks Kerry made it up to garner sympathy during the election. Logic does not apply in the dislike of John Kerry.

It was difficult to talk to my brother because he can be rather snarky. He loves saying things just to get people riled up. It was surprising that he cold speak honestly to me. I wanted to know, to understand. He sensed that. And he also saw me on the C-Span thing at the Baines rally in Manchester, NH, so I guess he sensed this wasn't a subject to needle me on too severely.

I've got a hunch that a lot of what people react to about Senator Kerry is his honesty. It isn't humble honesty; it is in your face honesty. I'm not sure I can explain this right... People react to other people by the way that person makes them feel about themselves and also by how much of a threat they deem that person might be on any level. John Kerry was accused of ambition, of trying to make a name for himself. The unstated part of that argument is, "at the expense of anyone who gets in his way." Now this isn't Senator Kerry at all, but I think it is projected on him because people see his hard-core style of honesty as a personal indictment of their own flaws. As a prosecutor, the perception was that he would scapegoat anyone to make his name or get another notch on his gun. Total baloney, but why would people think this? Obviously, because Senator Kerry only "played ball" in regard to sports, not politics. When someone so clearly takes the high moral ground, it makes those who do not, rather uncomfortable.

Lowell may have been as much to blame as Vietnam in the false perceptions that exist about Senator Kerry to this day. In small cities such as Lowell, there is always a "network" and if you threaten the network in any shape, form or way, you are toast. Senator Kerry has always worked outside such networks precisely because he is so honest. He's not corruptible and that don't play well among those who are. Sad to say, but I think Kerry's appearance played into this perception of ambition. He was always straight as a board, reed thin, immaculately groomed, possessed a rather intense (hawkish) gaze and looked people directly in the eye. All good things, but taken together with the suspicion that he wasn't someone who would capitulate, John Kerry was someone to mistrust to a good portion of the local cronies.

Just my take on how people suck.

:P

It's funny that it may be that people who say they want honesty and lack of corruption, in reality prefer someone (like Clinton or Reagan) who makes them feel proud and good about themselves, rather than someone who pushes them to be better.

It's interesting to hear that he never heard of any harressment. The stories of it were not form John Kerry, but from what Julia Kerry told Brinkley. (On at least one show, Kerry obliquely confirmed the story of a brick nearly hitting his baby daughter. He was asked by Dr Phil (of all people) if this was a cause of problems in his first marriage. (Kerry's answer was alnog the lines of it didn't help.) I don't think Kerry has ever spoken extensively about being on the enemies list, dirty tricks etc.

"It's funny that it may be that people who say they want honesty and lack of corruption, in reality prefer someone (like Clinton or Reagan) who makes them feel proud and good about themselves, rather than someone who pushes them to be better."

So true! The propensity for blowing sunshine is one reason I never warmed to the Clinton charm. Sen. Kerry does set the bar a little high for a lot of folks, no doubt. Too bad. We are a lazy and self-centered society. We really do need someone who will push us to do better. JK even uses those words frequently, "WE can do better." He's doing a bit of the Kennedy thing, asking us to participate. And we should. Maybe it will go over better in 2008, if he decides to run. This past year has seen a remarkable number of complacent couch potatoes turn to activism. How's this for a slogan: Get involved folks because it is your ass on the line?

I have heard them before. (My brother is a 25 year veteran of the force in a North Shore town and he was very vocally FOR Kerry last year. He is not generally political, but he came over to strike up a conversation with me last year and told me how his union was strongly in favor of Sen. Kerry. He had worked with them over the years, and there was a good relationship. And well, Kerry or *, ahm, no contest.)

It's also very sad that some people won't forgive old happenings. That long ago race had mistakes in it because the people running it were just kids. (Kerry was all of, what, 28 years old. Cam Kerry was about 20 or so. Gawd, talk about working without a net.) They ran a really good campaign until the Lowell Sun editor got to them and really, really did a number on them. That was incredibly nasty. However, as I have posted before, everyone encounters failure in life. No one escapes this. What reveals character is what happens when you are forced to confront failure and what happens next.

I think I'm going to sound like I'm stuck on repeat, but Kerry is one of the most unique pols to come out of Massachusetts in my lifetime. He didn't really have anyone sponsoring him. (That I know of anyway.) I think I read in an interview somewhere that he said he never really had a mentor to show him to ropes and help prevent errors that a more seasoned person would have seen coming. And yet, he won that Lt. Gov's race and then one of the pearls of the Mass political system, that other Senate seat not occupied by a Kennedy. (This is both a little snarky and way, way true.) Again, that was no accident, no 'he had weak opponents', no 'his Dad was a Senator,' no 'he bought that seat.' None of those things.

That is a remarkable achievement. He didn't get it because Tip O'Neill helped him out. (Tip wanted the other guy.) He didn't get it because he knew all those neighborhood people and could call on all that Mass 'tribal' help. He won it because, IMHO, he worked harder than anyone else, shook more hands, did more appearances and talked to more voters than anyone else. He earned it.

So, despite the snark and all the talk radio viciousness that has supplied the haters with ammo, he's still there. I know the snark and the nasty comments bother us, but, he really just keeps on going. I tend to focus on that more than anything else, cuz, it really is remarkable. That, to me, is character. It can be very rare in politicians and I really take notice of it when I see it.