Meanwhile, this analysis of yours is dead-on right:
"Another thought - I think that Kerry cast his vote in is support of the resolution supporting the war in Iraq as a sort of strategic move in preparation for his bid for presidency. I think he knew darn well that Bush will attack, with or without the resolution, and he also expected that the war would be a "cake walk" - a quick and easy victory. His jumping on the bandwagon was probably to defuse potential Repug criticism of being "soft" on national security. Of course, the war turned sour and his strategy backfired."
Everything John F. Kerry has ever done in politics, beginning at Yale and including his opportunistic and apparently transient anti-Vietnam War posturing, have been positioning/marketing calculations taken for personal political ambition. When it looked like the left would gain a toehold, JFK was "anti-war," even though he'd also made sure he had acquired the "war hero" creds to be able to deal with things if the "anti-war" pose didn't pay off.
Wojtek is 100 percent right about the Iraq crap he spews. What a train-wreck this horse-face is.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Wojtek Sokolowski Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:04 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re New Economist Poll: Bad News For Bush
Nathan:
> So if it's worthwhile to vote for a candidate, it's worthwhile to
campaign
> for him or her (or at least refrain from campaigning against them).
That's
> where my comment about individualism among the far left comes from--
folks
> talk about their individual actions but seem to have no sense of
collective
> organizing and the cumulative effects of that individual campaigning.
The
> rightwing is very clear about those effects: they lay out their
talking
> points, broadcast them, then watch their foot soldiers magnify the
message
> across every media source, radio show and Internet source possible.
I think while your comments about individualism are right in target, you misjudge the nature of this crowd. They might be crying about DP not giving them all the toys they want, but eventually get up, go to school and cast that vote for Kerry. I think, however, with all due respect that lefties campaigning for Kerry can do more damage than good. The only folks these can mobilize are their fellow travelers and assorted liberals, and these are already highly mobilized. The task is to sway middle Amerika to pull the lever for Kerry, and since most of that crowd tend to be conservative, religious, and patriotic - it is more likely to be turned off by left endorsements.
Bush plays the gutter populism card with extraordinary skill and that seems to take effect, as reflected in the polls. That can be stopped only by more credible counterattacks of the same gutter populism variety - which Kerry attempts but is not very good at that. Having likes of Michael Moore shredding Shrub to pieces would certainly travel a long way. But embracing liberal "talking points" and shibboleths as suggested by some on this list would be a disaster, a sure road to defeat.
PS. The self-righteousness of many lefties to bitterly oppose fellow travelers for real and perceived heresies is quite annoying, indeed, but is a product of US political and religious culture. That tendency seems to be quite widely spread in the US society.
Another thought - I think that Kerry cast his vote in is support of the resolution supporting the war in Iraq as a sort of strategic move in preparation for his bid for presidency. I think he knew darn well that Bush will attack, with or without the resolution, and he also expected that the war would be a "cake walk" - a quick and easy victory. His jumping on the bandwagon was probably to defuse potential Repug criticism of being "soft" on national security. Of course, the war turned sour and his strategy backfired.
If I were in his shoes, I would cut the loses, apologize, say that I was misled as most "American people" were and this way probably earn some points for being naïve but honest (which seems to be a virtue in this country). The fact that he does not do that baffles me. Is he really that stubborn, or perhaps his advisers are too entrenched in the beltway denial mentality that are incapable of understand how most ordinary people think. The Monicagate seems to have similar roots - had Clinton confessed his sin and publicly repented - he would have become a national hero.
Wojtek
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk