Voters ‘couldn’t find’ Kerry, says Hollings -The Hill

[Rose Siding]

There’s an unwritten rule in politics not to kick somebody when they’re down.

But Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) — who has made a point of speaking his mind during nearly four decades in the Senate — is willing to do just that by criticizing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for his failed campaign for president.
.........
Hollings, who noted that he himself failed to capture the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984, said Kerry “had no line” on the stump. “The people were looking at him head-on and couldn’t find him.”

However, consistent with senatorial courtesy, Hollings placed the blame mostly on Kerry’s advisers and consultants. “He was overcoached,” he said. “They ruined him.”

Hollings also disputed the notion, widely reported in the media, that President Bush’s top political adviser is some kind of a political genius. “Everyone is going, ‘Karl Rove is the architect,” he said. “Hell no! He made every mistake you can make.”

Hollings also disputed interpretations of the election, based largely on exit-polling data, that Republicans had an advantage on “moral issues,” pointing to Democratic efforts on healthcare and education. “My morals are way better than the greed of the other crowd,” he said.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/120104/hollings.aspx

[BamaLefty]

1. I Agree With That Rule

But wasn't Hollings right in what he said?

And I liked what he said, “My morals are way better than the greed of the other crowd,”

That was a winner!

[BrklynLiberal]

21. When Ideology is a Value

(posted entire article because you have to register to read it at WAPO site)
When Ideology is a Value
By Michael Kinsley
Sunday, November 28, 2004
It's been less than a month since the gods decreed that because of the election results American political life henceforth must be all about something called "values." And I gave it my best. Honest. But values won. I'm sick of talking about values, sick of pretending I have them or care more about them than I really do. Sick of bending and twisting the political causes I do care about to make them qualify as "values." News stories about values-mongers caught with their values down used to make my day. Now the tale of Bill O'Reilly and phone sex induces barely a flicker of schadenfreude.

Why does an ideological position become sacrosanct when it gets labeled as a "value"? There are serious arguments and sincere passions on both sides of the gay-marriage debate. For some reason, the views of those who feel that marriage requires a man and a woman are considered to be a "value," while the views of those who believe that gay relationships deserve the same legal standing as straight ones barely qualify as an opinion.
Those labels don't confer any logical advantage. But they confer two big advantages in the propaganda war. First, a value just seems inherently more compelling than a mere opinion. That's a big head start. Second, the holder of a value is held to be more sensitive to slights than the holder of an opinion. An opinion can't just slug away at a value. It must be solicitous and understanding. A value may tackle an opinion, meanwhile, with no such constraint.

No doubt there are strategists all over Washington busily reconfiguring their issues to look like values. Highway construction funds? Needed to help people get to Grandma's house for Christmas. You got something against family values, buddy? Or Christmas? Especially humiliating are efforts by liberals to reposition the issues they care about as conservative and therefore, we hope, transform them into values. Welfare? It (like nearly everything else) is about families, of course. And affirmative action is about work and opportunity. Liberals' motivation -- a simple instinct that a prosperous society ought to mitigate the unfairness of life to some reasonable extent -- isn't considered a value. So let's keep that one among ourselves.

Why do you care, or care so much, whether the people running the government have good values? Wouldn't you prefer a bit of competence, if forced to choose? For example, suppose we had a government that was capable of ensuring enough flu vaccine to go around, like the governments of every other developed country in the world. Wouldn't that be nice? And if you could have that kind of government, would you really mind if a few more of its leaders secretly enjoyed Janet Jackson's halftime show at the Super Bowl?

The Republican congressional leadership says that a clause giving congressional committee chairmen the power to examine anybody's tax returns just slipped into a big spending bill by accident. Whoops! Okay, it's the holiday season: I'll buy that. Maybe. But if so -- and call me a valueless heathen if you must -- I would like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from now on to read the laws he intends to impose on the nation, even if he does it on Sunday mornings and has to miss church.

It's not just a question of values getting in the way of more pressing matters. It's also a question of how much you want the government to worry about your values. My answer is: Not very much. My values are my own business. True, they are influenced by various private and public institutions of society and by the culture at large -- no doubt in unhealthy ways, very often. But I don't relish the idea of government getting involved to rectify any perceived imbalance. And I thought most conservatives agreed with me about this. But politicians who get elected because of their values are likely to see values as part of their mandate. That's ominous.

Values have a wonderful quality not shared by other political issues that are more reality-based, such as the war in Iraq or the growing national debt: They can be nearly cost-free. This is often true in the simple economic sense that practical problems cost money whereas spiritual problems, even if real, usually don't. It's also true in the political sense that value-based issues usually don't require much of a tradeoff on the part of the voters. You can be as pro-family as you want, without concern that you're giving up valuable anti-family values.

A country whose political dialogue is all about values is either a country with no serious problems or a country hiding from its serious problems. When I want values, I go to Wal-Mart.

[Yupster]

31. Yeah like the time when he was Governor of South Carolina

and he changed the state flag to put the Confederate Battle flag on it.

I have no use for these old time born again segregationists.

I'll just be happy when he goes away so that part of history can be over.

Yeah Fritz Hollings. Moralist.

[0007]

43. Yeah, we know how 'ya feel Yupster and it goes all the way to

Robert Byrd. Accordingly, no man is redeemable and no man can make a mistake, 'eh? And no one know history better than you!

You play a tough fucking game!!

[WI_DEM]

2. I've always liked Fritz Hollings

and I think he is right.

[redstateblues]

3. Foghorn Leghorn

[autorank]

4. Hollings is a great man!

In the midst of one of *'s many self-created crises, Hollings let loose and asked "Why aren't people in the streets protesting." He's always been a tough partisan. Next we'll lose Dingell (not for a long time I hope).

[BeyondGeography]

5. Hollings is loopy, but he has a point here

One poll said 24% of Bush voters at least considered voting for Kerry, but he couldn't close the deal.

All you have to do is isolate the Iraq issue and you can see where the casual voter may have been confused. There was his support for the War Resolution, his subsequent vote against the $87 billion (now there's one he would like to have back, I'm sure) and his many different statements on issues related to the war. These include the capture of Saddam (Dean wasn't fit to run the free world according to Kerry because he had the temerity to say his capture didn't make us safer; he never could live that statement down completely), and the very nature of the war itself (the soldiers died "protecting our freedom," but the war was a "reckless diversion").

A fair number of voters, who were in play, compared Kerry with Bush and went with the guy they understood, even if they disagree with him on some very important matters. We can rail at the voters all we want, but at least some of the fault lies with the candidate himself.

[sandnsea]

8. Mostly Democrats like you

Who repeated this bullshit every chance you got. To what purpose, I will absolutely never understand.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Sorry for telling the truth

It's a bitch, ain't it?

[sandnsea]

14. It's not the truth

Never has been. Why Democrats insist on being as stupid and brainwashed as right wingers is beyond me, yet there it is.

[BeyondGeography]

17. "Stupid and brainwashed" is thinking we had a

flawless candidate in John Kerry.

Your turn.

[sandnsea]

20. Nobody is flawless

Who's flawless? What's that got to do with repeating right wing bullshit lies? Why did Democrats do that? I really don't get it. I would have said any goddamned thing any other candidate wanted me to say in order to support him and win. But not the Kerry haters, oh hell no. Their goddamned egos were more important.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Look, criticisms of Kerry don't mean "Kerry Hater"

You sound like the right-wingers you despise, who equate all criticisms of Bush with "hatred."

If you care to re-read my initial post, there's no hatred for Kerry. I like the guy, especially for having protested the war when he came home from Vietnam. I have no problem with his being "reserved." But his positions on certain issues, and his packaged portrayal of his own impressive and interesting life, were unfathomable to many people.

As long as I live, I'll never believe that his vote for IWR was not a political vote, designed to make him look strong on defense for his presidential run. What happened to the wizened vet who opposed the Persian Gulf War? And, if you're going to go that route, then at least have the good sense to swallow hard and vote for the $87 billion. Then he compounds the error by saying "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Obviously, such twists and turns made it difficult for many voters to get their arms around Kerry. That's a fact, and saying so doesn't make me a "Kerry hater.".

[sandnsea]

26. Thanks for your help

Sorry, I just don't understand people like you. I have my opinions about the other Democratic candidates too. I guarantee you I would have kept them to myself throughout the campaign and even up to this very day. I can say "Howard Dean was against the war from the start" till hell freezes over, if he'd been the candidate, even though I personally think it was a position he concocted in February to campaign on. And if he'd flipped to his pre-Iraq vote position, I could have spouted that convincingly too.

Kerry's vote on Iraq and the $87 billion is quite clear to me and many, many others. Yet you prefer to repeat the right wing bullshit. Just don't get it. But hey, whatever, hope you enjoy the results.

[BeyondGeography]

27. How do you resolve the 1991 antiwar vote and the 2003 vote?

That's the mystery. Forget the $87 billion. He's lucky the Pubs didn't make more of that until the 3rd debate.

Anyway, I put my time and money behind Kerry like many others. Filing all criticisms of him under "right-wing bullshit" is juvenile. There's a reason he lost, and some of it has to do with John Kerry.

[sandnsea]

28. What we found after 1991

How complicated is that? geesh. No mystery there.

Yeah, there's reasons he lost. And a portion of it is Democrats who repeated right wing bullshit.

[BeyondGeography]

29. So Kerry is blameless...let's nominate him again!

Anyway, Papa Bush had the whole world behind him in 1991, and comparing Iraq's misdeeds back then (they invaded Kuwait, remember?) with their "misdeeds" in 2003—they were guilty of not telling us how bogus our ginned-up intelligence was—is patently absurd.

So what was Kerry thinking? That Junior would take the time to build a coalition? Give the UN weapons inspectors all the time they needed to complete their investigation? No. It's safe to say he knew, like everyone else with half-a-brain, that Bush had already determined to go to war. He didn't know, as he said, that Bush would fuck it up as badly as he did, but he knew the decision was made when he voted for IWR in October 2003. Then he goes out and says the equivalent of, "Bush better do all these things that I know he can't and won't do," just to cover his ass.

Furthermore, Democrats were united behind Kerry for the duration of the campaign, myself included. The proof is Nader's portion of the vote, which was miniscule and inconsequential. If you can point to a single instance of how "Democrats repeating right-wing bullshit" during the campaign cost Kerry the election, I'll stand corrected. Hollings' original point—that voters had a hard time figuring Kerry out—is undeniably true. You can blame the media for that, but you can't blame Democrats with any evidence to support you at all.

[sandnsea]

30. I didn't say that

I've said it before, there's a difference between grudgingly going along and being united. We had a whole lot more grudging than true support. I don't think it had anything at all to do with John Kerry, I think it was people's egos because their candidate didn't win.

I understand what Hollings was saying, but it isn't anywhere near what you're saying. In fact, I would bet Hollings would say Kerry worried way too much about people like you instead of just going forward with what he thought we really needed to do about Iraq.

And has anybody noticed, Bush got away with the war lies. Because people were more interested in ripping apart Congressional Dems, and John Kerry, than putting the blame on Bush, where it belonged.

[lojasmo]

37. I knew the rationalle for Iraq was bullshit....why didn't Kerry know?

Answer: He did, but voted for the war to remain "electable"

how'd that work out, anyway?

[LynnTheDem]

35. WHAT ????? If you ever vote AGAINST a war you must ALWAYS

vote against a war???

So those who ever voted FOR a war must always in future vote FOR a war???

WTF??????

[Virginian]

6. And Bush's best line was...

"You know where I stand on that."

He never stated where he stood. He let the voter use his imagination.

[TahitiNut]

12. Ubetcha. It was just another complete lie.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Bush voters have no idea where he really stand, particularly since he does the opposite of what he infers.

It's actually pretty remarkable. When 70-85% of the people who voted for Bush* think he's opposed to what he favors, or favors what he opposes, they're doing worse than a flip of a coin!

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

[lonestarnot]

7. Blame shmame...

Who can compete with cheaters. Sick of the past tense talk... and their getting away with the past tense talk and mistakes. No mistakes when you compete with cheaters who change the rules during the game and then nearly convince you that you've all bets are off and you've lost the pot, when you really haven't at all. GLARING VOTE FRAUD! CHEATING SCOUNDRELS! SKANKIE SKUNK WHOES! VOTE FLIPPING ROBBING FREAKS!

[Kellis]

22. LOL

Thats the best thing Iv read here all night!

Welcome to DU lonestarnot:toast:

[Judi Lynn]

33. Now you're talkin', lonestarnot !

Welcome to D.U. :hi: :hi:

[sundancekid]

9. both candidates' messages were hiding in plain view:

kerry mangled, overworked or "hid" his message
bush disguised (lied) his horror as in-your-face morality in his message

[BeyondGeography]

13. That's right on target

The only thing I would add is that Bush actually believes some of his own bullshit, and that helps him come off as a "man of conviction" with the visceral voter. How much (and which part) he actually believes is the only mysterious and slightly interesting thing about the man.

[Erika]

18. Bush has an addictive personallity that requires

constant salving. Whether it be booze, religion, or praise. He has surrounded himself with those that will praise him for doing the right thing after they tell him what the right thing to do is. It's sad that he can't see outside of his own needs picture to see the horrible state many of this country is in and how he's worsening their lives. Truly sad.

[BeyondGeography]

19. I agree, but he's also an incredibly cynical aristocrat

Add the sense of entitlement that comes from his social position, which he has used all his life to his advantage, to the insecurities that come with unresolved addiction and you get, well, a disaster. Unfortunately, there's a certain monstrous power to this combination in our lilliputian society.

[bklyncowgirl]

34. I don't know whether Bush actually believes in alot of what he's saying.

He is a better liar. A cynical, corrupt, aristocratic liar posing as a man of the people and willing to manipulate people through fear.

Howard Dean I think characterized him well when he said that Bush is not a racist or a homophobe. He's something alot worse because he exploits people's worst prejudices for his own gain.

[Straight Shooter]

11. Hollings can bite me.

And I hope it leaves a bitter taste in his mouth.

May he enjoy his fried moment in the sun at a great man's expense.

F him.

[politicasista]

15. Kerry didn't close the deal

some people are just ignorant.x(

[Straight Shooter]

25. The "deal" is still on the table.

And thank goodness neither you nor I are too ignorant to see that.

:eyes:

[leesa]

16. BS. Kerry ran a fine campaign. The problem was massive voter fraud

by the GOP with the tacit assistance of a lot of Dems. It is the elites preserving their status quo and Hollings is well aware of it.

[Niche]

23. A complicit media, thugs on the ground during election...

I WISH THE DEMS would STOP talking about a bad campaign! He (Kerry) kicked ass. People came out to see him in droves. The r has whipped for so long and so hard they believe they suck. I get so sick reading it here and hearing it... ahhh! They will never get these bigot-controlling-sadist-freaks' vote ever! I'm losing my mind... just really angry and f**king nuts...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. Thank you, leesa

Finally, some common sense among all this bullshit people are posting, blaming Kerry for not being something he never claimed to be.

"Closing the deal." What utter crap. All any voter had to do was to look at what the past four years have been like, and that closes the deal - if you have half a brain in your head and aren't blinded by slogans.

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq when he was lied to, as was everyone else, about the presence of WMD. Remember that? When he found out what was going on, he voted against it.

But, isolating that single episode out of his illustrious and honorable career in the Senate was precisely what Rove and Company wanted the voters to do. That people here are slamming Kerry for it today makes me ill and makes me think some of you will never be satisfied with any candidate, so I'd urge you to get off your pontificating butts and get out there and run for office yourselves.

Kerry did wonderfully, and the election was rigged. You don't have to go very far to understand that.

[KakistocracyHater]

32. Kerry a mystery

Watching John Kerry (& the Demos in general) was an exercise of frustration for me, because for too much of the time they seem to be disagreeing/attacking each other over the how-tos-despite already agreeing on the goals. It drives me nuts to watch people essentially have the same general message but stumble all over the place in getting it across. But the goppies are scary, they all say the same thing-verbatim. To me, that very strongly implies someone has sent out(via e-mail probably)what to say & exactly how. But to others, obviously the Repub script makes them seem "consistent". Demos ought to quit arguing over piddly details, from the outside they seem to be oversensitive. But Bush flopped like a fish out of water-big time. Demos just argue alot-in public. Should be in private only, so the more gullible people won't get confused. Hash & rehash the details in private, but close ranks in public. Democratic goals are worth it, imho.

[goforit]

41. Yes. Kerry beat up Dean & turned around to kiss Bush's ass...irony!

Quite frankly it always amazed me how thousands would show up for
Dean's rallies and only a few hundred would show up for Kerry's
during the primaries. Then Kerry wins by a landslide?

I believe Kerry and the Moderate Dem's (traitors)committed fraud in the Democratic primaries against DEAN!!!

Only to support the Skull & Bone blood brothers by pretending
there would be a "real election" for Democracy. Kerry made sure
these scumbags would remain in office. His Skull n Bone blood is
thicker than water even when humanity itself hangs on a precipice

Kerry had no PASSION for becoming president.
A good old silverspoon all right.

[Zynx]

36. True. We make Rove look like a genius with out stupidity.

[lonestarnot]

38. Oh this is good...NOT!

ROVE LOOKS LIKE...A PARTY TO POOP ON CHEATER, certainly not looking like a genius in my estimation. He appears to me to portray a real schemer, deciever, power monger freak, who would stop at nothing short of devil worship sacrifice (sorry dwrs) of babies to have his "boss" empowered. No appearance of trust from other half of U.S. constituency can be exhumed from any part of him down to his devious digits!

[Laelth]

40. I still think Kerry won.

And until I'm convinced otherwise, arguments about why we "lost" are pointless and disruptive.

:thumbsdown:

-Laelth

[Massachusetts]

42. What does

Sen. Kerry know that we don't? His silence is deafening. IMHO