Nathan Newman wrote:
>Glad to hear you reading Karl Rove's talking points. Kerry as waffler.
Kerry
>as unprincipled.
-What's his posish on Iraq? Can you decode it for me?
Kerry's position was actually barely different from Dean, who supported the war in Afghanistan and said he would have supported military action in Iraq if it had been preceded by honest multilateral efforts to avoid war and support from our international allies. Kerry basically had the same position, but they differed on whether the original Iraq resolution giving Bush authority to pursue what was promised would be a multinational effort was the right tactical decision. Dean was right that giving Bush a blank check was a mistake, but his and Kerry's position on the substance of when war on Iraq would have been justified are barely distinguishable.
And both are coherent, even if I disagree with both.
-And was it medals or ribbons he threw away?
Again the Rove talking point. Who gives a shit? He opposed the war. He was even arrested doing so. If at some protest, he tossed the ribbons and kept the medals for some sentimental reason, so what? Why is it relevant.
Kerry has been a consistent vote for civil rights, a consistent vote for abortion rights, a consistent vote for labor rights, a consistent vote for improving the environment. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which even Paul Wellstone voted for.
That's a good level of consistency. On the bad side, he voted wrong on welfare reform and a number of trade issues, but none of this indicates any particular "flip flopping."
Make substantive criticisms, but I actually am legitimately appalled that you are choosing to just repeat Karl Rove's talking points instead of making a real left analysis of what might be wrong with Kerry.
Nathan Newman