John Kerry: Still Right After All These Years

Got this old quote via:

http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/john-kerry-still-right-after-all-of-these-years/

It appeared in the NYT magazine on the eve of the 2004 election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?pagewanted=print



Couple that with this quote from an earlier interview in 2004 on Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/



The wisdom of these words have withstood the test of time.

has Kerry.

dealt with by the legal system and not the military. The FBI, Interpol and groups like that are much better at it and they do not act as a recruitment agency for the terrorists.

and seeing that first statement like sunshine appearing through dark clouds that had been there for so long I had forgotten that anything else was possible. This was the ultimate in hope and faith that a better world was possible. The realism and the analogies to other things made it obviously plausible. It was the combination of realism, pragmatism and idealism that made this so attractive. We did not have to give up who we were for safety.

Election day soon after was at first euphoric as the weight of the Bush years appeared gone, then the final count slammed me back to the unpleasant reality. With the Kerry blog gone, I found DU and most especially the Kerry group then.

It is too bad that people still had too much fear to accept the path Kerry outlined that would have taken us out of there. I wish more people, who in 2006, agreed Kerry was right, could have seen it in 2004.

...you wrote, karynnj. Much of the country had 'sand thrown in their eyes'...to paraphrase a certain U. S. prosecutor in the Scooter Libby saga.

Kerry was right!

some Democrats, who tried to argue that it is was a "misspeak". (That and the idea of a "global test" of what was sufficient cause to invade - it always sounded like a secular version of "just war".) That was a rejection of the Bush doctrine (that most of us, unlike Palin, knew) and was a call to a better set of values.

that would benefit ALL the countries involved, ESPECIALLY our own.

Thanks for the reminder, beachmom.

It's an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort." But go ahead and invade Iraq anyway.

needed.

which is exactly what MORE Dems who voted for IWR should have done, since many of them CLAIMED to have voted yes in order to find and eliminate the WMDs they believed were in Iraq. More than a few Dem senators claimed WMDs were their main concern.

How many of them were HONEST about their reasoning?

Only Kerry - as none of the other IWR aye votes would stand with his support of weapon inspectors over Bush's decision to invade, even when he was the 2004 nominee.

Want to emphasize that Kerry speaking out in January 2003 labeled him as "anti-war" in the MSM. Then, at the height of the popularity of the war in March/April when it was supported by 70 plus percent, Kerry was still saying that it was not a last resort and more diplomacy was possible. To many in this country, "last resort" should have meant something - it is part of the definition of a just war.

Kerry's vote was a huge mistake, and one that he has paid for. Consider that one thing he is rightfully proud of was his willingness to risk a political future by using his eloquence and stature as a war hero to speak against the Vietnam War. The fact is that he has had ONE story - in 2002, 2003, and every year since on what his vote was for. It is clear that he was trying to push Bush to working with the rest of the world, hoping they could avoid war, unless it were absolutely necessary and a last resort.

Americans overwhelmingly don't need to fret over dying in a terrorist attack or as innocent bystanders in an organized crime hit every day, but if you do end up dead in such an incident, it's more than a "nuisance." And comparing the threat of terrorism to, say, illegal gambling doesn't work too well either. I don't doubt that in an average year turf wars of illegal gambling outfits claim about as many lives as terrorism strictly defined, but the emotional impact of the latter on the electorate greatly exceeds that of that of the former--and a savvy pol ought to be aware of that, and speak accordingly. But that's small beans. Kerry made it clear that his point was that fear of terrorism, like that of organized crime, shouldn't cripple us or lead us to act in a deranged way.

Alas for John Kerry. It seems our media, whose default position is fiscal conservatism, will embrace no Democratic presidential candidates but those with rockstar charisma--like Bubba and Barry--who face charisma-challenged Republicans (George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole for Bubba, shriveled Walnuts! for Barry). About all Kerry's ever had is substance, and plenty of it. And that will never suffice in American politics.

I have gotten considerably to the left of John Kerry in recent years, but I will never forget that his brave and principled 2004 campaign made me proud to be a Democrat, after Howard Dean brought me out of Republicanism once and for all.

see air travel.

"And comparing the threat of terrorism to, say, illegal gambling doesn't work too well either."

The analogy aptly considers both criminal activities, which is the point: the military is not the entity that should be engaged in fighting terrorism.

My bet is, not one. Kerry's a decent, caring guy, and that comment says nothing about his heart, but it sure didn't help his cause.

Previously you said: "Americans overwhelmingly don't need to fret over dying in a terrorist attack..."

Now you cite the families of 9/11 victims. Are you saying that they believe the best way to fight terrorism is war?

What I am arguing is that "nuisance" captures the fact that any given American on any given day need not fret about falling victim to a terrorist attack, but "nuisance" does not capture the impact of terrorism on the few Americans who do die as its victims--or the emotional impact on the public. Perhaps the words "rare horror" would have served Kerry's cause better, rather than "nuisance."

when appropriate law enforcement, intelligence and vigilance would prevent things like that. The fact is Kerry's book, written in 1997 (New War) warned of the need for the same things he recommended in 2004.

The fact is that Kerry lost friends on 911. Two of the flights were out of Boston.

The question was on what victory against terrorism would be.

there will never be a time when there are no lethal acts of terrorism. No matter how rare lethal acts of terrorism may become, those that do occur--however few--are not well described as a "nuisance." The threat is not one that should consume us, due to its low probability (which can be made lower yet with wise policies of the kind Kerry advocates), so I see the sense of "nuisance" there, but the awfulness of those acts of terror that do and always will occur, make "nuisance" a poor word choice in my view. Bush and his political team were nasty shits to demagogue Kerry's words there, making him out to be a softheaded pacifist in denial regarding terror rather than give him credit for what he meant, the context of his remarks, and his record and proposals, but the Bushies/Roves are who they are, and it pays to "speak defensively" when you're up againt them.

I do think that it is impossible for someone, even someone as careful in speech as Kerry is, to never use a phrase that could be turned around. You are able to look at the comment after it has been demonized and still get the exact meaning that Kerry intended. I am not sure if any change in that word would have changed the reaction - as the reaction was to the concept that there could be a time where the threat of terror was not omnipresent.

The fact is that in 2004, Bush misspoke constantly and the media never held him to his original words. In 2008, there were far more cases of both Obama and Clinton misspeaking - where the actual substance was wrong. (The two most obvious "bitter" and "Bosnia")

The real difference was the powers that be obviously did not want Kerry to win and he had zero margin of error.

.

I think Kerry was making the point that we needed to bring the "emotional impact" into line with the real danger. The fact is that the Bush administration was doing the opposite. They were drumming up the fear level, increasing the emotional impact even when nothing additional really happened. If you look at the word "terrorism" and consider it means causing terror, the leading terrorists in 2004 may have been the Bush administration. They did AQ's work for them in instilling fear cynically knowing that it drove many to their "protection" ignoring that it hurt the country.

I am not sure what word would have worked to sum up Kerry's very complex, but very reassuring view of a future time when terrorism was not an over-riding concern better than nuisance. I actually think that, in reality, non state terrorism has been closer to a nuisance than to the all encompassing existential threat that the Bush administration pushed.

I also think that Kerry does not get credit for the charisma he has. He got huge, excited crowds that broke Clinton era records. He is a very compelling speaker in public. Look back even to 1971. Then, by his eloquence alone, he made people listen to him. He had no name recognition, no position that gave him prominence, it was just his words and who he was.

In 2004, Kerry got almost NO unfiltered coverage in the media - and that hurt. None of the fawning coverage of ever larger campaign events that Bill Clinton was given. In addition, not one of the major broadcast companies did the usual puff piece biographies, that have been done for EVERY major party candidate before and after 2004. I have seen Kerry speak to crowds about 5 times, two of them at Faneuil Hall. I think, if the media had treated Kerry in 2004, as they treated Bill Clinton, in spite of the various problems, in 1992, the result would have been very different. Kerry is not as outgoing as Clinton, but there was a basic image of kindness, strength, integrity and decency that Kerry had that was not seen by people watching the media coverage of his events. To me the surprise of 2004, was the more I dug to learn about the candidate, the more impressed I became - he was the real deal, not perfect, but a leader we could be proud of. (In past elections, the opposite was usually true, the more I saw beneath the charismatic veneer, the more I saw flaws that had been papered over.)

The only unfiltered coverage Kerry got was his convention, which got 3 rather than 9 hours of network coverage allotted in earlier years. and the debates. His campaign really was very brave and principled - just as the Presidential candidate is. In addition, none of the very real accomplishments of Teresa were covered. Last year, when the G20 met in Pittsburgh, there was an article of the resurgence of Pittsburgh in the 1990s. It was led by programs funded by the town's philanthropists. The philanthropist who called the others together to propose a coordinated effort and who was instrumental in creating programs that needed to prove their effectiveness - Teresa Heinz Kerry. In addition, she has funded substantial healthcare and woman's issues work. On green buildings, Teresa is why Pittsburgh is one of the greenest US cities, yet more was written in 2008 on Bill Clinton's "green building" initiative that had just been started, than was said in 2004 on Teresa's more than a decade of real leadership. Though we don't pick Presidents by the First Lady that would come with them, showing Teresa as the incredible woman she is, would have validated John Kerry, because she married him.

:kick: