Midwest Monday News 11.07.05
Posted by Steven Bellah on 11.07.2005
What an interesting week! Let’s get to it……
Whoa whoa whoa! Wait a minute!?!
Who knew that the Democrats had testicles? Harry Reid DEMANDING a closed-door session on Tuesday was one of the more surprising things I’ve seen in politics. The Republicans whining about it was fun times as well.
My feeling is that this should have been done 2 years ago. However, it seemed to be illegal to speak out against the President back then, so every Democrat was all for voting to go to war in Iraq. Oops, I mean voting to “give the president authority to use force.” Everyone’s been bitching about the war for months now, and it seems like the Democrats have finally gotten the message.
For the longest time, I always viewed the Democrats like I viewed Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, when he first appears before Congress, suggesting a National Boys Camp, shaking, fumbling his words, and being laughed at by everyone. The Republicans have sat back for years now and just dismissed any Democrat with a wave of their hand. Now, they are fighting back, and even though it won’t amount to anything, it’s still interesting to watch.
Is it a strategic tactic? Sure. But how else are you going to create a dialogue about this war, this President, and his administration? How many indictments have to come down before SOMEONE decides to question what is going on? Well, Harry Reid did that, and he should do it 200 more times. Sitting there and posting on your web blog or giving a speech at some community college will not get it done.
Stand up. Speak out. Do something.
The Truth: With Jokes
I picked up Al Franken’s latest on its release day, and I must say, it was quite the fun read. Al has a sarcastic tone in almost everything he writes, and if you’ve ever seen his talk show appearances or listened to his radio show, you know what I mean. His cynical, “I don’t give a shit” style is very popular, especially amongst Liberals. The Left gets murdered by the Right because some of them are well, legitimately full of shit. Just go to DemocraticUnderground.com and read the conspiracy theories about how Bush and Rove planned 9/11 and how Bin Laden and Bush Sr. are buddies and you’ll know what I mean.
Franken’s last book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”, was one of the best Liberal pieces of work I’ve ever read. He has an intelligent style of writing that is still interesting at the same time. I mean, on one end, you have Michael Moore, who writes, well, like me. He states the obvious, makes jokes, and while I like his stuff, he doesn’t leave much to the imagination. On the other end, you have the Liberal writers who present boring facts and 500 page tome’s about the Bush administration that puts people to sleep rather than lighting a fire under their asses.
Franken is right in the middle. He’s a smart guy, who presents facts after facts (The one complaint I had about “Lies” was the first 3 or 4 chapters was just him debunking almost EVERYTHING Ann Coulter ever said) but still adds humor to keep you turning each page. He also adds lots of inside jokes that only people who follow politics can really understand (like calling his source for the 2004 election “Mark Felt”). However, casual Americans can still read this book and get it, as opposed to reading say, a Rush Limbaugh book, where he names almost every politician in the world. Even I had a hard time following “See, I Told You So.”
“The Truth” follows the 2004 election night, the campaign (especially how Bush won), the Terri Schiavo situation, amongst other things. The one complaint I have is that, like most partisan writers, Franken almost never blames the Democrats for anything. Any defeat or setback for the Left is because of the evil scheming of the Republicans, and not due to anything the Democrats could have done.
For instance, Franken briefly mentions how he didn’t think John Kerry was the best candidate, and how he didn’t agree with a lot of what Kerry stood for, and did. But, he doesn’t really talk about that. Instead, he spends 3 chapters talking about how Bush lied, cheated, and used dirty politics to win election in 2004 (no, he didn’t win re-election, since he lost the first time). Could it have killed Franken to maybe admit that John Kerry let the Republican machine run him over, and he never really fought back?
But, in true Franken form, he jokes about that, saying that he was writing the book with Kerry and Teresa standing over him. Then, “John Kerry” interrupts for a long-winded page of thanking those who voted for him. Again, if you don’t understand Al’s style, you would think that it really was John Kerry writing that page of dialogue.
If you’re a liberal, or a Franken fan, you’ve probably already done like I did and bought this book before reading this. But if you haven’t yet, or can’t decide if you should, I think it’s worth a shot. There are not too many sane Liberal writers out there, and it’s good to have a voice on the Left when there are 3343 Conservative books that come out each year. (and of those 3343, 3341 claim to be impartial).
Why Kerry Blew It
I have gotten many, many requests for my rant about how John Kerry lost the 2004 election. I wrote it literally days after it happened, and in fact, it was the piece of work that got me hired here at 411. With Kerry gearing up for another run in 2008, I thought it might be interesting to tell why I thought he lost last year, especially that the one year mark since that dark day passed this last week.
For the record, I like John Kerry. And if it DOES turn out to be Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side, I think Mr. “Reporting for Duuuuutyyyy” will be getting my vote again in 3 years.
But, as much as I like the guy, I was disappointed in his campaign in 2004, and it is reflected here. So, without further adieu,
“How Kerry Blew It”
Why did John Kerry lose the 2004 presidential election?
He definitely had enough firepower and reasons to take Bush down, but for whatever reason, he couldn't. Despite the huge deficit, a war that (according to a CNN poll) 46% of America thinks is a bad idea, and 7 million jobs lost, George W. Bush was still re-elected, and fair and square this time.
Why?
Now, I'm a liberal, and I voted for Kerry all the way. I can't stand Bush, but that's another topic at another time. I'm not entirely on the left--I would vote almost anyone--especially Rudy--over Hillary in 2008--But I was soundly on the Democrat side of things this time around.
Which makes it so hard to see Kerry go down in defeat.
So again, why? After Fahrenheit 911, Rock Against Bush (volumes one AND two), Cameron Diaz on Oprah, Shrub gets another 4 years. Well, here's how Kerry blew it, at least to me:
(Beware, it’s kind of long-winded, just like Kerry himself)
**RIMSHOT**
Charisma:
Clinton had (and still has) tons of it. A coworker of mine said it best--Bill Clinton could sell you the grass out of your own backyard. He cheated on his wife, lied about it directly to the American people, yet he is still extremely popular. The Right absolutely hates him, not just because he's a Democrat, but because they did everything they could to damage him, and he's more loved today than ever. If he could (and believe me, he would) run again, he'd win, I'm sure of it. Now, John Kerry is no Bill Clinton, and I think that's part of the reason he was picking up to call Dubya on Wednesday morning. We never really saw the real John Kerry. While Clinton seemed like a guy you could have a normal conversation with, Kerry always seemed like he was acting. Like he had his guard up.
I feel like I could sit down with Bill Clinton and have a pretty good, and hopefully honest discussion about politics and American government. If I were to sit down with John Kerry, I believe it would be completely different, even if I told him I was behind him 100 percent. He would be in campaign mode, telling me how “America can do better, and I’ll make it better”. I don’t like someone who is obviously acting when they talk to me. It’s like when you get someone a Christmas gift and they obviously hate it, but fake a happy response because they know that’s what you want to hear. That’s what John Kerry did.
Now, forget about what he talked about in his campaign speeches and think about HOW he said it. Using the "God" voice (I'm Jooohhhnnn Keeerrrry, and I'm reporrrrting for duuuuutyyyy!") and rambling, long answers didn't win him any votes, it just bored people to death. If you can find it, watch Clinton's speech at the DNC this year. He cracks jokes, he's relaxed, he's having a good time. John Kerry spent his entire campaign playing the part of a candidate, not playing the part he should have---of John Kerry the person.
The Swifties:
Oh, how they will be remembered. Face it, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVFT) wasn't anything more than a political campaign smear attack for one purpose: To damage John Kerry. I don’t think they all were sitting around one day and thought, “You know, it’s been 30 years, and I never really got to explain why I hate that Kerry guy for being such a bastard in Vietnam. I think I’m going to write a book about it!” Now, I truly believe Bush personally had nothing to do with the ads, but did you ever notice how he never discredited them? Sure "Senator Kerry served admirably", but that was just HIS opinion. It didn't mean people should listen to it. And they didn't.
I work at a Borders bookstore, and other than Harry Potter, "Unfit For Command" was the most popular and requested book in the 3 years I've worked there. Now, 95% of the people that bought it were Right wingers who already hated Kerry, but the book's success caused quite a buzz, and I think it reached non Righties as well. It was the Republican "Fahrenheit 911".
And what did John Kerry do to answer these charges? Well, um, not a whole lot. Sure, he said they were wrong, and sure, he lashed out at them on the campaign trail, but I don't think there was one time he really sat down and officially took on these charges. According to his campaign, doing that would make the SBVFT an even BIGGER story. Well, it did become a bigger story, but it was because they were allowed to keep on attacking, and Kerry let it happened. He never took them head on, and because of that, the SBVFT kind of lingered on throughout the rest of the campaign. I'm sure more than one voter had them and their entire dumb charade on their minds on Tuesday. And that's just what John O'Neill wanted, wasn't it?
John Kerry lost because he was defined by his opponents and not by himself. Isn’t it ironic that the two candidates in this election were a decorated war hero, and a national guardsman who not only didn’t go to Vietnam, but can’t account for SIX months of his time on duty--and it’s the WAR HERO who has his record analyzed and attacked? Isn’t it ironic that as soon as John Kerry began using his military experience as the center of his campaign (“I went to Vietnam, I was wounded, I’m a hero. The president wasn’t ever there in the first place!”) That the Swifties suddenly decided to break their 30 year silence about Kerry’s “war crimes”?
Never mind that none of their tales of these “war crimes” were ever justified. Never mind that several news sources dug up information that completely discredited them. Never mind that John O’Neill was repeating the exact same role that Richard Nixon hired him to do in the early 1970’s--people heard it, and ate it all up, and Karl Rove and Bush just sat back and giggled.
Jumping topics:
Forget the "Flip Flopper" claim--what really hurt Kerry wasn't his changing of opinion (and honestly, Bush is just as much a flip flopper as well)--it was that he never spent too much time on one topic. Now, Shrub's main focus was always terrorism and stopping the "Evil Doers". Probably because he couldn't really defend his record on the economy or anything else--but that's for another time. Dubya always stuck to his guns, and told you "I will keep you safe". Now, John Kerry will keep you safe as well. But next week he'll also lower prescription drug costs for seniors....then he'll decide to clean up that mess in Iraq...then he'll keep us safe again...and then he'll be a good president because he won 3 purple hearts...he was in Vietnam, you know--he's a war HERO!...then he'll lower taxes on the middle class.....
I think you can see where I'm going.
Now, I do believe John Kerry would have tried to do all of those things (but with a Republican controlled Congress, most of it wouldn‘t have gotten through), but he never picked a topic and stuck with it. And, in a way, he let Bush and the outside forces control his campaign. I mean, one week his top focus is health care. But then, the SBVFT tries to discredit his war record, so then we have a month of "John Kerry, War Hero". Then, Bush says we can't win the war on terror, so we have 2 weeks of "I'm John Kerry and I'll kill the terrorists". Then Bush and the Republicans say he has no plan for Iraq, so he sends out a long e-mail and goes on Letterman detailing his plan to bring the troops home. Then Christopher Reeve dies, so he stumps for stem cell research.
Get my point? John Kerry never stuck to one topic, and because of that, whenever he'd change subjects, voters quickly forgot what he was talking about the week before.
Need proof? go to Georgewbush.com and watch his political ads. Almost all the Pro-Bush ones deal with the war on terror. Now go to JohnKerry.com...his ads are good, but there’s 647 different topics. I don't think America really knew what John Kerry was going to do, because he never spent enough time telling us without having to tell us something else.
The Conventions:
The Democratic national convention was a nice, happy "Peace, Brother" type of party. I mean, it was great!! HELP IS ON THE WAY!! Barack Obama is the future of politics! John Edwards is damn sexy! Kerry used U2 and Van Halen after his speech! Alright! But, um, why shouldn't I vote for Bush again? Aw, screw it! It's a Beautiful Day!
Starts dancing and giving the thumbs up)
Then came the Republican convention: 9/11 families. Terrorists are evil. Zell Miller. "I will defend America whatever it takes." Geez...things are scary. And that Kerry guy is going to use spitballs in Iraq? Screw that, I'm voting for Bush!
Yes, I'm a liberal, but the Republicans put on the best convention I think I've ever seen. Their message was clear: Kerry won't keep you safe, Bush will. You don't want another 9/11, do you? The DNC was full of Shiny Happy People®. Kerry wanted Bush to join him in being "Optimists, not opponents". Barack was a happy success story. Then the Republicans came out and threw Rudy out there and took us back to 9/11 all over again, and well, it was over after that.
The scare tactic factor:
Can someone tell me what the reason of the "Terror Level" scale is? "Here's how scared you're supposed to be, America". Well, it worked. How many times did you see someone being interviewed and they would say "I'm voting for Bush, because he said he will keep us safe." When it all comes down to it, it doesn't matter how many jobs are lost, how many soldiers die in Iraq, or how big of a tax cut Halliburton gets, everyone wants to be safe, and they are scared to death of not being safe.
I think every time someone is beheaded in Iraq, or whenever someone blows themselves up on a bus in Israel, people get scared, not angry. John Kerry believed people would see these things and want change. He was wrong. Americans may not like what George Bush is doing, but they were never convinced that John Kerry would do a better job of keeping America safe from Mohammed Atta's offspring. Of course, the "American Taliban" video a week before the election--who sort of looked like Karl Rove with a towel around his face--:) and our good old buddy Osama showing is face 4 days before the election poured gasoline on the fire. People saw the Osama video and didn't get mad that Bush didn't find him, they got scared because he was still out there, and still able to attack us.
You could hear the chads falling out of the "Bush/Cheney" holes in the ballots the second that video aired.
Well, um, thanks, John. You make some good points, but that guy in the turban is scary. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Now, where do you actually stand, John?:
John Kerry isn’t as much as a flip flopper as the Right would want you to believe. But his views on two VERY important topics in this election--gay marriage and abortion--were perhaps his unraveling. Officially, he is personally against abortion, but wants to protect a woman’s right to choose. He is against gay marriage, but supports “Civil Unions” between homosexuals (basically, you can live together and love each other, just not officially, and don’t let me see you kissing--that’s GROSS!).
John Kerry wanted it to go both ways. The problem is, it doesn’t work that way.
Bush has two opinions on two subjects: He is against abortion of any kind. He is against any form of gay marriage. There you go. Kerry has 4 opinions on 2 subjects, and that doesn’t make any sense. He’s against abortion--OK, fine. But, since he’s a liberal, and he doesn’t want to look too moderate, he throws in the fact about protecting a woman’s choice. He’s against gay marriage--OK, fine. But, since he wanted to court the homosexual vote (which probably wouldn’t want to vote for Bush) he added the line about “civil unions”.
The American people saw this and said to themselves “Where does this guy stand? He can’t have everything his way. It’s one or the other, and Bush has chosen one side. Even if I don’t agree with what Shrub believes, at least I know where he stands….that Kerry guy might change his mind half way if it isn’t working.”
Game. Set. Match.
The winner: George W. Bush.
Now, who’s running your campaign again?:
Who is this “Mary Beth Cahill” person that keeps sending me e-mails on Kerry’s behalf? I mean, I’ve never seen her. Well, except for that little picture of her in Newsweek watching Teresa give a speech, but that’s it. And man, she sure wants me to send money a lot. But, what am I supposed to do to help John get elected? Oh, here’s another e-mail. I guess the answer is to send a donation to the Democratic party so they can, well, they never really tell me what they’ll do with it. But every dollar helps!
I think the most obvious example of John Kerry’s defeat came in September. After the trashing he took at the RNC, Kerry brought former Clinton campaign aide Joe Lockhart on to “assist” in his campaign. Mary Beth Cahill remained as the woman in charge, but my guess is it was in name only. Mary Beth was never able to energize me, or most of the Democrat voters for John Kerry, and Kerry thanked her by basically replacing her.
Lockhart didn’t do any better. All I ever heard him say was an explanation on how they were going to get the necessary votes to win the election. I never heard him stump for Kerry, and give that classic campaign manager response, where he quickly answers your question, then spends 3 minutes telling you how his candidate will lower health care costs, lower taxes, etc.
Karen Hughes, Dubya’s version of Lockhart, is a master at doing that. And every time she would spin for Bush after the debates, she would do just what I described above. Of course, she was blatantly lying--the economy isn’t better, Iraq isn’t going great, and Bush really can’t count to 12. But if you say it enough, people will start to believe it. Is John Kerry a flip flopper? Well, not any more than Bush is, but if Karl Rove snaps his fingers and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham tell you he is enough times, well--people start to believe it.
In Conclusion:
Kerry’s campaign was wimpy, and while he finished strong, he was limping most of the way, thanks to poor campaign officials. Paul Begala and James Carville, Clinton’s old campaign aides, have written several best-selling books each and have a hit cable news show (although Jon Stewart hates it). Why? Because they were (and still are) good at what they do. Mary Beth Cahill and Joe Lockhart aren’t. And that’s why John Kerry will spend next summer windsurfing with Teddy Kennedy instead of vetoing Right-wing abortion laws.
John Kerry should be our president-elect right now, but he isn't. Not because he was the better man for the job (as I think), but because everything pointed to him wiping the floor with Shrub, and he didn't. What can we learn from this? Well, I guess the moral of this whole post is....Being a nice whimp will get you nowhere.
John Edwards better start getting really pissed off if he wants to have a chance in 2008.
Scalito?
For the record, I don’t really care about Samuel Alito, or “Scalito” for short—just because I know that really pisses the Right off. I hate to say “I told you so”, but I did several weeks ago when I said that Harriet Miers was a sacrificial lamb so that Dubya could nominate the most Right wing person possible, and he did.
Please don’t try and humor me by saying that this guy will interpret the law and won’t vote Conservative on every issue possible. I guess we know that Bush was lying in the 2nd presidential debate, don’t we?:
I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
So, if it came down to McCain vs. Clinton in 2008, how do you think Scalito would vote? Just like the 9 justices in 2000—for the candidate HE wants, not what the constitution says.
Plugs
Hey look! A new Politics writer! Go read Brian McClain’s State of the Republic. It's actually quite good!
STAY CURRENT