I don’t think Kerry would be wise to get too specific if he can avoid it. Kerry has to make Bush’s mistakes the issue – he has to define Bush, and in a non-flattering way. It’s easy enough to do, but I don’t know if the DLC types have the rocks to do it.
Also, apparently you also have reading comphrension problems. I never said they were “very detailed.” Rather, I said: “Kerry’s plans are far more detailed than you suggest.” The original “suggestion” to which I replied was a pathetic and blatant straw man.
I don’t see why I should do your work for you, but I did it anyway. To you I suggest: try to have infomred opinions. Learn to read things and search for information instead of just parrotting the one-liners from partisan hacks. The information is out there, and it is not hard to find. I watch C-Span on a regular basis, have seen numerous Kerry speeches there, and it is obvious to anyone who pays attention that Kerry’s Iraq plans have much more going for them than what is suggested by the post to which I responded:
To say that Kerry has no solid ideas about policy is a blatant lie. It is clear that he has far more detail behind his (far more coherent) ideas for Iraq than Bush does.
To say you think Kerry’s ideas are a mistake is legitimate. But to say they don’t exist is complete bullshit.
Adopting a patronizing tone lends no extra cogency to your argument.
Damn you’re good at knocking over strawmen!
Pay attention to the news, and you won’t need me to do your homework for you. (See previous post as well.)
Shodan, the only quarrel I would have with your entire post is that I think **Desmostylus ** himself is the one who made the observation that “The wingnut brigade is absolutely ecstatic over killing “brown skinned people” and sniggering at weenie Liberals.”… in other words attempting to paint conservatives as being ecstatic over killing “brown-skinned people” and sniggering at those who disapprove, and was likely also an attempt to make people think this is GWB’s attitude.
I hate to bring up the L-word here, but as Rush (L)imbaugh once said:
“To tell the truth is self-defeating if you’re a liberal!”
Hence the comments, attitudes and rebuttals you see so often on this board.
Why in the world would Kerry have a “detailed” plan for Iraq? At the very best, he won’t be able to anything directly about it until January! Nobody, but nobody, has any idea what the state of things is going to be in Iraq come January! He’s going to have to make up his mind then, not now, making up his mind now would be…well, stupid.
He has some general outlines, perhaps more based on hope that fact, but when nobody really knows the facts, that makes sense.
I am stunned to see people get all huffy about how Kerry doesn’t have a detailed plan when the people currently involved in this swamp-draining, alligator wrestling scheme don’t even know to whom they will turn over power on June 30 even as they insist that they will! Who’s kidding who, here?
A damn fine point.
This suggestion that Kerry’s desire to increase foreign participation is unrealistic because other States are lining up to send their troops in is disingenuous. We all know very well why many nations with the finances and the military capacity to send troops to Iraq aren’t: Like many of us, they don’t trust Bush’s motives or his competence. He sent in his own troops to fight for a cause that has turned out to be either a mistake or a lie- would you want your armed forces doing his bidding?
The fact that Bush is unable to secure meaningful multinational support is no reason to suggest that Kerry would be unable to secure the same.
Hmmm…aren’t you refering to the inspections before the invasion? What part of “Even after Bush’s end-run around the UN to invade Iraq” didn’t you understand? Even after the deed was done, Bush still insisted on controlling EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of the process. He could still have easily engendered UN cooperation simply by allowing them some modicum of control of the process. Kerry’s plan is to do just that. Besides which, an extra 60 days certainly wouldn’t have hurt. Iraq was no threat to us, there was no reason they had to be invaded RIGHT NOW.
What, specifically, are the details you think should be in his plan, that are not?
I agree with this, however I think Kerry has more then enough ammo to show that Bush is better out of office .
Well I don’t know how popular the perception of him running only on a “I’m not Bush” platform is, but I have to say it seems like everyone is viewing it that way. I’m all for him doing that, but he needs to realize he can point out he ain’t Bush by railing on him 24/7 or he can point out he’s not Bush by telling us how he’ll do things better. I have not seen much evidence of the latter except for typical “I’m for good things, and against bad things” kind of statements.
True, can’t disagree with you here.
This is where I’ll disagree with you, because to be honest I don’t hold these people in as high a regard as others may. Now I’m not going paint all these people with a huge brush, but to paraphrase the SH/ppl of Iraq saying, I don’t know if politicians are the way they are because of the system or the system is how it is because of them. A system rife with blind partisan bickering, where people will pass up a productive idea simply because they can’t claim credit for it. These same people point fingers yet never do anything constructive to fix things, or even if they wanted to, the opposition would kill it until they could come up with the same plan only with their name on it instead. It’s a pure system of survival, and zero culpability, where the needs of the people are thrown out the window in favor of those who help the system trudge along. One thing for sure I have a hell of a lot more respect for second grade teachers, crossing guards, social workers, police officers, firemen, and many, many more before I’ll be getting to senators and presidents on my list.
YMMV
I agree with the gist of your statement, however I don’t agree specifically in regards to politics. Most likely because I when I look at the government I see a bunch of people disagreeing over how to do something in the most expensive unreasonable fashion possible. I know there is a lot going on behind the scenes, but I just feel like they don’t get enough done, which in turn gives me the impression of ineptitude. It certainly makes it tougher to view these people as intelligent.
Well, I think this is where the system failed us. I think we would be better off with a national primary day, instead of spreading it out and letting propaganda, false impressions, and skewed polling methods rule the process. But at the end of the day you’re correct, a super smart nice guy, or a super scummy asshole are both smart if they can take on the system and win.
I’ve always said the skills needed to get elected, and the skills needed to be a good president are pretty far apart.
This is a great question. I suppose I view Kerry as an “idiot” because he seems to be squandering a pretty good shot at being president at the moment. I find it amazing that given the state of things that he is only tied with Bush. I wish he would address the issues head on and temper them with reality, instead of giving us some vague explanations. Of course I should say that I view him as an idiot, not that he is an idiot, because of his failure to do that to my satisfaction
Way to take the fun out of it. 
This will probably sound lame, but I don’t necessarily equate wealth or extensive education with the upper level of humanity. Of course it won’t work against you either.
Yeah, true, but most of these guys try and run from their imperfections, instead of just 'fessin up. 
It’s the running that makes them look bad, not the imperfections.
To clarify: not “bribed” - threatened. Members of the coalition governments and armed forces have gotten bupkus from their support for the Bush administration’s policies. No economic advantages (not even a chance for their industries to bid for the plum reconstruction contracts), no military advantages, and certainly no political advantages (as Spain showed and as the UK may well show; Blair has taken a big hit on Iraq and his general defense of and capitulation to the US agenda). The French government, for all the beating France took in trade and tourism, may yet profit more from their non-participation than Britain will from its cooperation.
Which, admittedly, has absolutely nothing to do with Bush’s (or Kerry’s) standing in the polls.
We must be miscommunicating, I agree 100% with this. I was saying 60 days wouldn’t have hurt us, and would have added so much more legitimacy.
Well to be honest I would like to hear him trot out a course of action, and then shoot some hole through it. Then shoot out an alternative course of action, and shoot some holes through that. I would like him to do this several times with the intend of explaning that at the end of the day we have no good options, only a series of bad options and worse options. This would be a good place to start IMO.
I kind of agree with you here as well and I go with the first option. I remember my brother making a similar point when Joe Lieberman was chosen as Gore’s running mate and the “conscience of the Senate” was shown to have feet of clay. And his (my brother’s) point was that it was a mistake from the beginning to assume that there was anyone who could ever advance in politics to the point of being a vice presidential candidate without being willing to sell out his principles along the way.
I actually once started a thread about this, long buried in the archives, about how the shallow nature of political campaigns was the fault of the voters, who made those shallow techniques effective, and hence necessary. And I also think much of the talk about pandering to special interests ignores the fact that the vast majority of the country belongs to one or more special interest group (who are only considered special interest groups by non-members), making some amount of pandering necessary as well.
But it is also worth bearing in mind that people are not necessarily all evil or all good and that people can often have more than one motivation to do something (and they will generally convince themselves that their motivation is the loftier one). From a moral standpoint, I would view politicians as individuals, with some better than others, and all corrupted to some extent by expedience.
But the bottom line is that there is a lot more competition for the positions of senator and president than there is for the position of fireman and second grade teacher. Fewer available positions, for one thing, but primarily the vast difference in prestige and power. So when you deal with someone who has made it to these positions, you are dealing with someone who has made it to the pinnacle that thousands of others would aspire to (or would aspire to, if it were even within their sight). So there is reason to believe that the guy might have something that enabled him to beat out all these others. By contrast, a second grade teacher, no matter how honorable a profession, has not demonstrated anything beyond that which any number of other people have accomplished.
I think it is possible to rise to the top in politics with failings like being a weaselly person - it’s almost a job requirement, as above. But I don’t think being an idiot helps you rise in politics. So if someone is in fact an idiot, the likelihood of them beating out thousands of non-idiots to get the top job is negligible. And the same goes for any number of other characteristics.
This is true to a large extent, but in many instances it is not, and many people often overlook this. There is a lot of politicking that you need to do in order to run things successfully, especially to the extent that you need the cooperation of the legislative branch of office. Not to mention to avoid rocking the boat with all sorts of constituencies. If you really had a president who meant what he said and said what he meant at all times, I think his administration would be an absolute disaster. (This is also true of most people in dealing with their own personal and professional lives, but the stakes are higher for presidents). Or a president who refused to horse-trade some favors to get his legislative priorities. Which is not to mention the “morally neutral” qualities that stand you well in both roles (e.g. charisma).
Personally, I think that Kerry has little chance to win. It is very difficult to beat an incumbent president with the economy improving and the country in semi-crisis mode. I think Kerry was the second best of all the serious Democratic candidates (after Edwards).
If you could get a candidate who could combine the personality of Edwards, the gravitas of Kerry, the earnestness of Lieberman the accomplishments of Kennedy etc. etc. that candidate would beat Bush. But that would be a perfect candidate. Perfect candidates don’t exist.
Make that 50 million in March alone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26698-2004Apr20.html
Kerry spent 14.5 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html
Great post Izzy, I think you nailed everything spot on.
It is also the Bush plan to get UN involvement in the reconstruction, and to bring in more countries to provide troops.
What I’d like to hear from Kerry is a committment to Iraq to reconstruction, regardless of the countries we can bring on board, or the level of UN support. This is not an admission of failure from the start, rather the contrary, it is a signal of a determination to finish the race.
It puzzles me, too, that diplomatic failures always are always assumed to be of American making. There is considerable evidence that France and Germany wouldn’t have supported war with Saddam Hussein at any time, under any circumstances. This would have been so regardless of the number of security council resolutions broken, the amount of time given, or the number of inspection attempts turned away.
Getting back to the point of this thread, I think a lot of Americans would love an assurance from John Kerry that American interests won’t be held hostage in this way. If it means a unilateral approach, so be it. Certainly the French aren’t afraid of acting unilaterally when it suits their agenda. Their recent actions in Africa prove that.
They aren’t but we’re still blamed for them, which is something we should have kept in mind before we went in.
I still think we could have handled things better. I would have asked what those countries wanted (looks like it was 60 days) and said ok, cool, now what? I actually felt that we were rushing because we didn’t want to wage war in the hot Iraqi summer. IIRC we had a window to attack or we would have to wait a few more months.
Apparantly they aren’t afraid to take a stand when someone else acts unilaterally either.
Kerry would be better if the situation would permit him to shut up. People sympathize with GeeDubya, all of this trouble, and Kerry has (shrewdly, in my estimation) kept the temperature of his attacks down. It is far better for him if people conclude that GeeDubya is a bad president and then consider the alternative. But he doesn’t want to arouse sympathy for poor beleagured George, misinformed by his CIA, and misled by dat ol’ debbil Cheney.
Trouble is, the shit is flying thick and fast, and there is just about no way he can not comment. If only there was a way he could go into some kind of retreat, be incommunicado for a week or so, let the focus stay on GeeDubya’s unfolding fuckups, without him commenting and seeming to exploit the situation.
I hear that a lot. Not enough, but a lot.
Hehe…
“Oh, pleease don’t t’row me inta dat Obal Offis, Br’er Voter! Oh, pleeease don’t!”
[QUOTE=KnorfAlso, apparently you also have reading comphrension problems. I never said they were “very detailed.” Rather, I said: “Kerry’s plans are far more detailed than you suggest.” The original “suggestion” to which I replied was a pathetic and blatant straw man.
I don’t see why I should do your work for you, but I did it anyway. To you I suggest: try to have infomred opinions. Learn to read things and search for information instead of just parrotting the one-liners from partisan hacks. The information is out there, and it is not hard to find. [/QUOTE]
Hey Knorf! First of all, thanks for the links, I am working my way through them and there’s some interesting stuff there.
Second, congratulations on being a smug, sarcastic asshole. YOU and people like you, with which this board is rife, are the biggest reason that I just can’t get behind Kerry. As bad as he is, as much as I hate his domestic adjenda, a Bush victory in November wouldn’t be the end of the world, and it would have the added benefit of causing you and your looney liberal collegies to melt down SPECTACULARLY, a prospect which promises to be highly entertaining. Frankly, if it wasn’t for the spectre of Bush appointing SC justices, an action that will resonate for decades, I’d seriously consider voting for him just to witness the circle jerks of misplaced outrage that would ensue. Well done! Way to rally support for your cause!
elucidator, I have recently finished working on a 5 year financial plan for the company I work for. In all logical reasoning I know (and I would hope that upper management would know) that the numbers they are seeing in 2008 are essentially a pointless exercise based on current state economics and production. However, the data that has been put out for 2005 is probably pretty decent. Not perfect, but if I were to compare it to what I see on December 31, 2005 it will probably hold water. However, this plan isn’t a set in stone kind of thing. As situations change, adjustments will be made.
My assumption is that people calling for a detailed plan from Kerry are looking for more specifics than “international troops, coalition, not Bush”. I would also assume that those same people understand and accept the fact that what Kerry plans for today will probably change over time as extenuating circumstances (another attack, wide spread peace, etc) come about.
I guess it’s something like show us a plan, tweak it when needed, but go beyond the simplicity of a sound bite that my mom could come up with.