Not Too Late: Anybody But Kerry

This is already all over the Web, which ought to tell you something. But because Jim Ridgeway of the Village Voice is an old-time compadre of mine, I’m only too happy to go along with the pack and post his piece on Why John Kerry Must Go. I’m doubly compelled to do so after watching JFK II on Hardball this afternoon and literally nodding out. Natch, the Democrats are not about to take this sage advice. So what else is new?

I had to chuckle reading Bob Scheer’s frantic L.A. Times column this morning sternly warning Kerry that he must firmly state his opposition to the war if he wants to win.

I laughed because I was thinking, “Now why on earth would Kerry do that?” He never said he was opposed to the war. He voted to authorize it. He has since vowed to “stay the course.” He has never claimed the mantle of peace candidate but all the peaceniks (or almost all) voted for him anyway.

Scheer and other Democrats urging Kerry to become the anti-war candidate are merely projecting their own desires on the poor guy. Kerry was chosen not because he stood for anything, but because he was the ‘electable’ guy. Remember?

Comments

[Crid]

I'm a registered dem but conservative (Dole 96, W 00). I voted for Edwards in March and I'd do it again in November, but the wheels need to start turning *now*.

[steve]

hmmmm...and your guy Johnny 'Cute as a button' Edwards was any different? he too voted for the infamous 'do whatever ya wanna do in Iraq Mr. Bush, we're too afraid to say no' resolution...

here's an interesting interview with a terrorist evil doer speaking of Iraq...this guy sounds like the devil incarnate...

http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/archives/000270.html#more

[Steve Smith]

Oh, damn, the Democratic nominee has lost Ridgeway; could Cockburn be next?

[steve]

Will Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush bring in the new Qing Emperor?

http://billmon.org/

[Marc Cooper]

You guys are a riot. Edwards also voted for the war authorization for sure. But at least he could articukae a clear raison d'etre for his candidacy. Funny comment that one about Cockburn. No I don;t think it means anything that Kerry has "lost" Ridgeway, or me, or Kaus or any other Kerryphobe. It's all those millions of uninspired voters who are gonna sit it out.

[steve]

Actually, no, he would have been in the same jam as Kerry, having to explain away his cowardly vote for the war and subsequent 'opposition' to the war...Voters would have been just as confused by the media attacks on him for the flipflop...

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve,

Why was Edwards' vote for the war "cowardly?" I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I support the war wholeheartedly. Am I a coward, too? Or do I just not agree with your position?

I don't remember too much opposition from John Edwards. A bit of criticism, which is fine, but not opposition. I would have happily voted for him, but Kerry is a problem for me. The fact that he's also a problem for Marc, for the mirror-image reason, bodes badly for him.

[steve]

Why was Edwards' vote for the war "cowardly?" I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I support the war wholeheartedly. Am I a coward, too? Or do I just not agree with your position?

--that's a fair question, albeit you make a leap here that's not accurate i think. i said that vote is cowardly, not a person's support for the war. if you support the war, fine. if you're voting to hand over your right to warmaking powers to the president because of political calculations...that i'd call cowardly, for kerry and edwards both. since the main justification for the war was so-called "WMDs", kerry and edwards both had ample access to evidence that Bush was just making stuff up out of thin air, they were just too afraid to make that a public issue:
(this is from a website that is surely not respectable and probably "loony left" crazy, etc., but what the hey):
http://www.traprockpeace.org/glenrangwalaindex.html#misled
------------------------------------------
I don't remember too much opposition from John Edwards. A bit of criticism, which is fine, but not opposition.

--yes, i'd generally agree with that, which is why he'd be just as unable as Kerry to articulate an alternative to Bush, outside of "more troops, more troops...". If you could vote for Edwards though, you could vote for Kerry, policy wise you're talking no substantive difference.
--------------------------------

[Bob]

"I had to chuckle reading Bob Scheer’s frantic L.A. Times column this morning...."

Scheer vision is so clouded by ideology that the guy probably hasn't been able to see straight for his entire adult life.

[steve]

Scheer vision is so clouded by ideology that the guy probably hasn't been able to see straight for his entire adult life.

--didn't they used to say that about martin luther king too during Vietnam?

[Crid]

>> he too voted for...

A feature, not a bug.

[yfb]

Anyone who *actually believes* that it's not too late is a moron. And anyone who
says it without believing it is a liar. Which are you, Marc?

I preferred Kucinich, but supported Dean as soon as it was
clear that Kucinich had been thoroughly marginalized.
Kerry was way down on my list. But now, like Dean, Gore,
and most people who aren't morons, liars, or buffoons,
I support the guy who isn't Bush. Of course, since you don't
think Bush is a danger (not as much as Truman, you say),
you can afford to not really care, and thus to spout your BS.

[Pat Curley]

Just curious as to how you think it's not too late, Marc. Wasn't it more or less established in 1980 during Kennedy's attempted putsch that the delegates are bound to the candidate to whom they are pledged? The only chance I see of a different candidate is if Kerry steps down, which does not seem likely.

I keep hearing brave talk about how united Democrats are in being determined to oust Bush, but I don't see it in the left-wing blogs. Instead I hear gripes about the lack of purity of the candidate.

[yfb]

"I keep hearing brave talk about how united Democrats are in being determined to oust Bush, but I don't see it in the left-wing blogs. Instead I hear gripes about the lack of purity of the candidate."

Um, you seem to be equating "Democrats" and "left-wing blogs". Dean, Gore, and those who supported them have pledged to Kerry, as has most of the rest of the Democratic establishment. "left-wing blogs" are all over the place, some focusing on the importance of defeating Bush, some taking a Nader line, some focusing on what a disappointment Kerry is, and some like Marc making careers out of being the right-wingers' favorite "leftist". I can't imagine why you would take the blather of bloggers, who are most likely to be both egomaniacal and iconoclastic, as any sort of indication of what millions of Democrats are up to. For a better indication, consider the attitude toward Bush of over 1 million marchers in Washington recently.

[Marc Cooper]

I see that the card-carrying Democrats have lost not only their temper but apparently also their tolerance for diversity-- at least diversity of opinion. My political opinions have been a vast open-book for thirty years so I feel no need to apologize for my views, take'em or leave 'em. What I find fantastic is that Demos are now so scared, so freaked out, so psched out that is now a violation for the Thought Police to engage in irony, satire or god forbid ridicule of their hallowed leaders. Get a life.. but first get a good candidate.