January 7, 2007
"One of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics."
According to Terry McAuliffe's new memoir, “What a Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,” that would be John Kerry's decision to forbid attacks on George W. Bush at the 2004 Democratic convention. Yes, that was Kerry's big problem all right. He was just too darned nice to his opponents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Kerry's biggest problem in 2004 was that he was John Kerry.
Meanwhile, back on the Earth where the Dems were not so lovey-dovey towards Bush in '04...Earth-Kerry plans to run again, thus showing Campaign Alzheimers...Theresa Heinz now only has 55 more ways to screw up the party...
Clinton was a political savant, he wouldn't let an attack from the roaming packs of jackals go unanswered in the very same day. Why Kerry didn't respond to the Swiftliars is beyond me. But Kerry ain't too bright either.
I'd rather have a condidate with some ethics than a spineless idiot who trots out Rove and other lifeless pimps.
Democrats are seldom more nauseating than when they are in "we are just too darn nice and decent for our own good" mode.
Kerry was plenty negative on Bush in '04. The problem was the way he was negative. It was his snobby, Chatsworth W. Osborne demeanor, mixed in with the phony macho and sense of entitlement that did him in. "Oh do lets remove this beastly commoner from our midst and put our kind of people in charge."
The other b.s. that Kerry supporters repeat is that Kerry should have responded to the Swift Boat crew attacks. In this they are right, but not for the reasons they think. The Kerry campaign's response was to disdain them as riff-raff -- as if no discerning person would entertain such vulgar notions about St. John. The swiftboaters perhaps could have been taken on factually, and where they were wrong on the facts, overcome. But instead it was like: These people don't deserve a hearing.
The problem with Kerry is he was Thurston Howell III running against Gilligan. In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the choice, but between those two, it's not surprising the majority picked Gilligan.
BTW, I voted for Thursty.
Terry McAuliffe is an excellent example of sleaze. I don't trust him or anything he says.
Given what Kerry said on television when he was a VVAW, either his service in Vietnam was more dishonorable than avoiding service (because he said he committed war crimes), or he came home from honorable service and spent his time slandering his fellow servicemen.
As soon as the issue came up in the campaign, there was only one method of damage control available to him -- he could disavow everything he said when he was in VVAW and write it off to youthful indiscretion. The problem with that is that it would have forced him to jettison all his "I'm a vet" rhetoric, because a youthful indiscretion defense means "ignore what I did back then".
It was a package. If he defended his service in Vietnam, he'd have to defend his VVAW statements, too. And if he ran in 2004 saying, "Yeah, I was a war criminal, and that's why you should vote for me instead of for Bush", I think that might have hurt him a teeny bit more among the average American than not answering Swift Boat Vet attacks.
The problem with Kerry is he was Thurston Howell III running against Gilligan
Damn. This is why I came back to Althouse.
Where else can you get these incontinent-making comments on blogosphere?
Cheers,
Victoria
Kerry had plenty of problems, presumably too many to win; but given how the down ticket races also turned out, there is slight evidence that any Democrat would have been able to overcome the Party's yearning for defeat in Iraq to win the presidency.
Actually i always thought that john kerry was the result of what happens when you have a head on collision between Thurston Howell
and Herman Munster!
Gilligan's wife, Mary Ann, was selected by a wide margin over Lovey.
Victoria: Depends.
Post a Comment