Cynthia Tucker:KERRY PLAYED THE POLITICAL ODDS AND NOW IT APPEARS HE LOST

[jbfam4]

KERRY PLAYED THE POLITICAL ODDS AND NOW IT APPEARS HE LOST
Mon Nov 10, 6:39 PM

By Cynthia Tucker http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1317&ncid=742&e=11&u=/uclicktext/20031111/cm_ucas/kerryplayedthepoliticaloddsandnowitappearshelost

Kerry's malaise can be traced to one act, one decision, one vote: his support of the resolution giving President Bush (news - web sites) the authority to invade Iraq (news - web sites). Had Kerry voted "no," he'd be the Democratic front-runner right now, bringing credibility on foreign policy because of his military service while also easily upstaging Wesley Clark (news - web sites) on domestic policy.

As Congress debated Iraq last year, Kerry became one of the Senate's most articulate critics of President Bush's rush to war. In commentary published in The New York Times in September 2002, he wrote: "Until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq."

The truth is more likely this: Kerry caved in to what he believed to be his political interests. Last year, many Democratic strategists were advising their congressional candidates to vote for the war. Kerry, whose most transparent flaw has always been calculated ambition, probably believed that his presidential aspirations would be better served by a "yes" vote on the resolution.


The consideration of invading a sovereign nation -- and putting young Americans in harm's way to do it -- ought to be the sort of issue in which a man or woman votes his or her conscience, regardless of the political ramifications. If John Kerry failed to do that, he doesn't deserve the presidency.

[wtmusic]

1. Don't get it

If he said that in September, how could he vote for IWR in October?

[pocoloco]

2. "many Democratic strategists were advising their congressional

candidates to vote for the war"

I guess I must be naive but this is hard to stomach! Who are these "strategists" whose opinions supercede those of the people. Maybe she is right, at the time I sure didn't understand how so many Dems voted the way they did.

This is really disheartening!

[Kahuna]

4. But the actual voters/constituents were advising them not to...

Too bad they listened to the strategists and not us who will actually deliver the votes.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Exactly

Millions demonstrated, made phone calls, wrote letters, send faxes and e-mails urging their representatives to vote against the war. It is ludicrous for someone like Kerry to expect those that oppose the war to be so forgiving now that blood has been shed.

Why vote for Kerry when we have Clark?

[Dhalgren]

3. I completely agree with this assessment.

If Kerry is to have any chance at the presidency, he is going to have to address his vote empowering Bush and giving the fraud a blank check. Kerry will have to lay it out in an honest, strait foreward way, with no waffeling or shading. He needs to come out and plainly say "I was right and here's why", or "I was wrong and here's why I did it". So far his attempts at this have fallen far short.

[Eloriel]

16. I'd say so too, except that

there's one problem with this scenario.

Kerry seems incapable of the kind of sincerity needed. It would once again be a political calculation, and it wouldn't wash. That's my take.

I will not vote for him unless he does disavow his vote, but he shows no inclination to do so anyway.

Eloriel

[NWHarkness]

5. Kerry trusted Bush

'Nuff said.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Nuts. Kerry had a flashback to 1990

when a lot of Dems lost their asses after voting against Poppy's Iraq war. Somehow Poppy's propagandists managed to turn public opinion around freom 80% against to 80% for the war practically overnight. Babies, incubators...remember?

[Brotherjohn]

6. This concerns me about Kerry, too. Though I haven't yet made up my mind.

I understand the argument that perhaps we needed to give Bush the "option". I also understand that Kerry may have not felt that Bush would go through with it without U.N. support. I even understand the political reality of needing to vote for it, IF Kerry felt that Bush was only going to use the vote as leverage to sway Iraq into compliance. I don't agree with any of these arguments, but I can buy them as valid arguments for Kerry to make.

But it seems Kerry's too smart to be so easily duped. ANYONE following this thing had to know that Bush fully intended to invade. Anything enabling him would only make that more likely. I realize hindsight is 20-20, but to give Bush carte blanche for a unilateral, pre-emptive war seems more like a political decision than a foreign policy calculation.

The environment then was much more of a "with us or against us" one. But it was the responsibility of Kerry and other leading Democrats to stand up against such a ludicrous mentality, and they failed miserably in that respect, at least when it counted.

The there's also the fact that the Senate was fed false intelligence about Iraqi nukes just before the vote. But I have yet to hear any Democrat forcefully make this case (save for Graham).

[tlb]

7. I'm unsure Kerry's prior positions on Iraq allowed him a NO vote.

For years Kerry, along with most senior members of Congress, had been warning about Iraqi WMDs. the need for regieme change in Iraq, etc. For him last year to have voted NO after urging action for years would have left him open to questions about the legitimacy of the years of sanctions and other acts he had supported.

[Brotherjohn]

8. There is a big difference between "warning about Iraqi WMDs...

... the need for regieme change in Iraq, etc." and voting to give the president the power to unilaterally initiate a pre-emptive war.

Bush people also repeatedly cite Bill Clinton's similar positions in attempting to claim that their position is no different from Clinton's. But of course, Clinton did not invade and conquer Iraq. Clinton chose to work with the U.N., and only chose to pursue limited military strikes.

Kerry would have simply had to say "the time is not right for this yet" or "we should not cede Congress's war powers to the president", or "we should get a U.N. resolution specifically authorizing force before passing such a resolution".

He did none of that, however. I believe he did not do so because it was not politically expedient.

[Martin Eden]

11. Another BIG difference

The difference is between voting to go to war and voting to cede your Constitutional authority for making that decision to the executive branch.

I'm with the Libertarians on this one. We've had too many wars in which war was never declared.

The best explanations Kerry can now possibly make is that he either believed there was already grounds for war, or that giving the president authority would gain concessions from Iraq to avoid war.

In hindsight, both explanations demonstrate poor judgement.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Then how come Kerry is not saying what Lieberman is saying?

To his credit, Lieberman has been consistent on Iraq. Holy Joe supported the war because he wanted Saddam out on humanitarian grounds, no matter what Saddam did with WMDs. Lieberman's position is defensible, while Kerry's is not.

[AP]

10. If the Democrats voted against the war, Bush would have found a

way to make it work against Democrats.

People don't realize it, but there's a script that's being played out here.

The story is that the Democrats with the best chance of beating Bush aren't going to make it through to the Gen. Election.

[Larkspur]

12. The Repuke script last year was to take control of Congress

and the IWR was the way to do it because they could energize their political base with it and depress the Dem base. The Repukes knew that the Dems were divided and the leadership weak, and they took full advantage of it.

Remember that laptop that was found with the Repuke election plans. The war was the key to their campaign strategy and even after finding that laptop, the Dems fumbled the ball.

[Eloriel]

17. Not good enough.

Their job isn't to avoid criticism, it's to represent the people and (imagine this one, if you can:) do what's right for the country.

There are ALWAYS things the Republicans can and will use against them. They've got to get a lot better at handling themand not pretending they're being "victimized."

Eloriel

[Alpharetta]

13. Reminder of how the democratic senators voted

Democrats Yes
Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.

Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore.

[Alpharetta]

14. It will affect my primary vote.

I won't vote for a candidate who voted out of political expediency.

I'll vote for a candidate with courage.

[Myra]

20. Thanks for the list and sentiment Alpharetta

I feel the same way.
So I can't imagine how I could ever support
Senator Clinton, which is a bummer.
I thought she might be an actual viable presidential
candidate someday.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Maria Cantwell...

I won't forget.