“The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”

Miles, on September 6th, 2004 at 5:35 pm Said:

“The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”

Oh,, and, yes, Kerry’s statement is consistent with his vote to authorize the war.

Is this meant to be sarcastic? How can anyone who supported and authorized this war make such a statement?

David Weinberger, on September 6th, 2004 at 6:14 pm Said:

Not sarcastic, just difficult to say with a straight face.

I think it’s just barely consistent. He voted to authorize in order to give Bush a credible threat but (says) W assured him he would not go to war unless and until a coalition had been put together and UN inspections had been carried out.

The truth is, of course, that Kerry was afraid to vote against the authorization because he thought it would kill his presidential aspirations, so he found a way to make it consistent with both sides of the issue.

AngloBaptist, on September 6th, 2004 at 10:36 pm Said:

But David, this is what makes Kerry appear to be weak. He’s a player…an overt and not too talented political player.

I am pretty sure that he will lose the election. There is not enough energy behind the “Get Rid of Bush” camp to elect Kerry. And Kerry has not given us a clear, strong picture of what makes him different from W. The Dems have done more to adopt Republican moderate mess than they have to set themselves apart.

I am bummed that Clinton’s speech was only a keynote speech for the DNC and not the Kerry campaign itself. Clinton stated differences. Kerry does not.

Again, we all know that there are differences. We know this in our guts and from observation, but we have to deal with the political dissonance that Kerry and W are trying to be the same “electable” candidate.

James Robertson, on September 7th, 2004 at 8:31 am Said:

The attack ads on this statement pretty much write themselves. Kerry should have picked a single position and stuck with it. He now looks weak and indecisive. Watch him lose, and lose big

David Weinberger, on September 7th, 2004 at 10:57 am Said:

JK’s actually been more consistent than W. Remember when we invaded Iraq because of WMD’s, but now it was always to liberate the Iraqi’s, draw terrorists to battle, and make the world more democratic?

Brad Hutchings, on September 7th, 2004 at 5:15 pm Said:

See David, Bush’s standbye public position is palatable though. Frankly, I think it more likely the goal all along and the defining principle of a “Bush Doctrine”. Removing a lingering threat doesn’t seem strategic. Keeping the battle out of our yard and in theirs is nothing but strategic.

To Kerry’s credit, he is trying a lot of different approaches to see what sticks. My entrepreneurial mindset likes this. What I don’t like is that he can’t seem to find one that works, one that is worth sticking to. I sense that he can’t do that because he doesn’t feel he can get in line with Bush on foreign policy, and then contrast on domestic and social issues. Kerry is not so much a flip-flopper as an indecisive slacker. When experimentation turns to wandering and then to slacking, people go from cautious to nervous to intolerant.

So he says things like “I am for the war in Iraq but would have done it 100% differently.”. The emphasis there is not on outcome but on means, and he would just do it all differently from Bush presumably because if Bush did it, it must have been the wrong thing to do. That’s silly. Another silly thing is mocking the Brits, Danes, Poles, Italians, and other non-French, non-German Europeans, not to mention the Aussies and Japanese, who helped us in Iraq. When a bunch of your friends show up to help, you don’t mock them in order to curry favor with 2 crapweasels.

Elisa, on September 7th, 2004 at 6:39 pm Said:

Not different from W.? That’s just smoking crack.

Let’s step away from the Iraq mess for a moment, which either guy is going to be stuck with, and think about the following:

-Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice (with a bunch of really old Supreme Court justices.)
-Pro-environmental regulation vs. getting rid of them
-Pro-civil unions vs. Pro-rewriting the Constitution to make 10% of our population second-class citizens
-Pro-assault weapons ban vs. NOT
-Pro-separation of church and state vs. NOT
-Pro rolling back tax cuts for wealthy vs. making them permanent
-Raising the minimum wage vs. NOT
-Raising the cap, but keeping the Estate tax vs. Repealing it altogether
-Allowing drug importation and government negotiation on drug prices vs. NOT

I could go on. Do none of these issues matter anymore?

You can agree or disagree with any number of the above positions, but don’t pretend these two candidates are the same.

This is the Nader red herring, and it makes me crazy.

The fact is that Bush has adopted Kerry’s position on Iraq in the last months since it became such a millstone around Bush’s neck.

This is a common issue I rant about in my blog for the Santa Clara County Demo. Party, mostly because I can’t believe that after four years of Bush, people would still trot out that line.

http://sccdp.org/blogentry.php?linkID=http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/mt-static/archives/issues/000671.html

David Weinberger, on September 8th, 2004 at 7:35 am Said:

JK has been consistent in his Iraq policy: Internationalize it and train the Iraqi forces to reduce the burden on our military and our economy. Also: Equip US soldiers properly and give them the financial support they deserve.

Issues Forum, on September 9th, 2004 at 4:41 pm Said:

People are still seriously talking about no difference between the candidates?

I read this blog entry today that totally annoyed me. Or at least, one of the commenters on the entry annoyed me. here’s the statement that made my head explode: “And Kerry has not given us a clear, strong picture…