There is an interesting story going around about Kerry and a speaking engagement he recently held. In reading it, I can't help but think of another democrat who had somewhat of the same probelm.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/14/...iraq/index.html






Questions for debate:

1.)Is Kerry a 2004 version of Hubert Humphrey? A guy who is a moderate and who lost support because of it?

2.)What impact could the anti-war crowd in hurting Kerry's election chances?

3.)In taking a stance against the protesters, is it unfair to criticize Kerry as being "anti-war"?

1. I thought that Kerry acting a little more moderate would help him win some of the independent vote but i guess its actually hurting him with the extreme left. I still think that the "anybody but bush" leftist ideal will still keep kerry strong with the liberals so maybe being a little more moderate will be positive.

2. The anti-war crowd won't hurt kerry's chances. They can't...they have no real power. They had no power before the war or during the war and they will have none in this election. The anti-war crowd has two choices...vote 3rd party and Bush for 4 more years...or vote kerry and get the chance to get bush out of office.

3. I find this interesting because it might show another flip-flop in kerry's viewpoints. I don't see how he can criticize Bush about the war if he is standing against anti-war protesters. Kerry needs to make a televised speech where he lays down his views on every issue and then sticks to those views. This going from school to school and getting beaten up by questions is embarassing.

I see where you are coming from with this, but I don't think so. Or rather, yes and no. Al Gore, now, he was a Humphrey. Kerry is a moderate, he is definitely in the Clinton mold of centrist Democrats. But this time around, I think most liberals will suck it up and vote for him anyway.



You are making a few assumptions here. First, not everyone who is against this war is part of the "extreme" left. Secondly, I would hardly call "Anybody But Bush" a leftist ideal. Putting it that way implies that liberals are operating from a position merely of negativity in terms of principles. I don't consider this an ideal, merely a situational ethic. I imagine that it is no more telling of ideals than Republicans who would have voted for literally any Republican instead of Clinton. Aside from that, I agree with you. It is smart politics for Kerry to appeal to centrists - given the split in this country, he's pretty much got the vote of most die-hard liberals. However, this should not be taken to mean that those of us who consider the differences between the two major parties to be by many degrees too small will not be asking him the same tough questions we asked of Bush, or of Clinton before him.



Well, I pretty much addressed that above. I think (I hope) we will continue asking him tough questions, vote for him, and offer rational, cogent criticism once he is in office, if that is indeed what occurs.



It would be ignorant to call Kerry "anti-war." He obviously is not. In fact, the majority of posters here at America's Debate are not anti-war, even those who are against the Iraq war. I am in a very small minority, and you could truly call me anti-war. Of course, on another level, I hope that (and believe that) all people are "anti-war."

I would like to take these questions backwards:

3.)In taking a stance against the protesters, is it unfair to criticize Kerry as being "anti-war"?

Kerry is in no way anti-war. I expect he will hold the line in Iraq, make sure there is security and stability before entire pull-out. Possibly in contrast to other libs on the board, I dont believe in pulling out too soon; I think the June 30th handover is a pipedream. If we do so, Iraq will most certainely fall into a civil war struggle for power. Bush himself is making another big mistake in his denial of the facts of life, in hopes to look good for an election. We cannot, now that we have gone there, retreat suddenly and let the chips fall as they may. This is going to be disastrous and further undermine US credibility on an iternational level. The entire Mid-East could errupt as a result of a power struggle over Iraq. I understand that occupation is wrong, but the Brits can tell you that pull-out without total security is a disaster. Anyway, I support Kerry in this view.

1.)Is Kerry a 2004 version of Hubert Humphrey? A guy who is a moderate and who lost support because of it?

2.)What impact could the anti-war crowd in hurting Kerry's election chances?

The extreme anti-war crowd may obstain from elections, Kerry is not their candidate however they often dont vote anyway, small potatos. Yet, there is more to leftist politics than this war, hence the ABB crowd.

Much of the concern on the left and anti-war advocates are future wars if the Bush admin is allowed to stay in place. Most (politically active) leftists have been educated to the ideology by this current admin, which calls for US military domination worldwide and action against of any and all that disagree with US hegemony(PNAC). They have educated their peers and know that this election is crucial. The Dean turn-out shows just how powerful this can be, yet Kerry has done little to harness those lose ends. Shame.

Like Quark , I think they will bite the bullet and vote Kerry. Not that they will be correct. Kerry is another side of the same coin, but we will be rid of the neo-cons who in many of our opinion are suffering from an insane ideology that cannot be sustained militarily, economically or psychologically. It is one that will bankrupt the nation in more ways than one. Kerry is their/our only half-hope for some restraint.

Kerry as moderate: I believe this is to his benefit, but he lost all the momentum created by Dean. The primary voters went with him for a reason, I think they erred on the side of caution. This might be the Dems undoing because Kerry is giving a weak message and not showing leadership qualities as far as appearances go, but ...lets not jump too soon to conclusions, because Bush was a bungling idiot of a candidate, and still is, despite much counseling on public speaking he has relatively no successes to go on in his campaign.

This one will be an election of ideals, since ( I believe, that except the most staunch loyalists) neither Bush nor Kerry is a candidate that repubs or dems desire to vote for as a solution to the countries problems. Sad but true.

I don't know that this is true, at least from the Republican standpoint. President Bush has pretty strong support in the mainstream GOP party I think - not just "staunch supporters". I honestly don't know about Kerry and his support within the maintstream Democratic Party. There does seem to be an awful lot of "ABB" going on there which we've addressed here in this forum on another thread.



1. First of all, but today's standards, Humphrey might be considered to be a "moderate", but he really wasn't. Humphrey's problem was that he was running almost as a surrogate of LBJ and carried the Vietnam baggage with him on that. HHH's credentials as a liberal Democrat were unquestioned other than the fact he was LBJ's VP, but in every other area, left wing and mainstream Democrats didn't have a problem with him or his record as a Senator. John Kerry should wish he was a second-coming of Hubert Humphrey or at least viewed that way. Humphrey was a pretty good guy, straight-shooter, no-nonsense. I didn't vote for him in 1968, but if he'd won the election, I wouldn't have been terribly concerned about him being President. He was a decent person.

2. This is a really good question I think. It cuts to the heart of the problem that Kerry faces. He's trying to run on the "Clinton model" crafted by Dick Morris - the so-called "triangulation" strategy. The concept behind this tactic is to "run left" in the primaries, then move to the center for the general election. Clinton pulled it off, but Kerry is no Bill Clinton, he lacks the considerable political skills of Clinton. He needs to come up with a way that he can hold support from the left wing of his party and still appeal to the centrist Democrats and moderate independants. I don't know that Kerry has the political skills necessary to do that.

3. It's difficult to label Kerry as much of anything at this point, the guy is all over the map! "I actualy voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it". What in the world does that mean? Kerry to this point doesn't seem to want to be defined, he certainly isn't interested in defining himself. Ok by me, the Bush supporters will be happy to do that for him, but this gets back to his political skills I think... or lack thereof. There is a long ways to go before the November elections and sooner or later, John Kerry is actually going to have to take a stand on the issues and tell the American people what he plans to do. Even the left wing of his own party is pushing him to do that. Not a good sign.

I think that Bush has strong support amongst the parties big contributors, no choice really.

I talk to Repubs all day long, the people, not big money, not little money either... and they have serious concerns and what I would call ' objections' to what is going on in this admin. I have never before seen Republican turncoats as a few lately, and I have observed them expressing deep concerns about this admin. They will never vote DEM but Bush has *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off more than a few hard edged, old time Repubs. They believe on Iraq and tax cuts but nothing else, especially temp workers, Medicare and ballooning deficeits, even the marriage amendment. Of course, social issues are the last concern of conservatives, they vote tax cuts , but it doest take away from that fundamentalist ideology in government is grating on them too in todays world, as well as issues of funding illegal immigrants, you know , welfare is always a primary concern in the conservative mind, the bane of their world.

I think being this moderate will hurt Kerry. There are people who DON'T LIKE BUSH. Not people who think Bush is ok but they wish there was something a little bit better, and Kerry keeps playing this election like it is the latter.

I think this will hurt him in the long run, but not on his stance with the war.



I believe most Democrats - who weren't just anti-war, period - criticize this war at its very heart not because of the missing WMDs (that came later), but because they believe it should be the United Nations fighting this war instead of mostly Americans, some British and a few hired hands.

Kerry's stance is this same thing. Not that he supports what Bush did in this war or how we got here. But now that we are here, we need to delegate power to the one organization that should have solely had this power in the first place - the United Nations. And that is a Democratic view.

1. Kerry is not a Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey lost because of Vietnam. Nixon won because he promised "peace with honor." Note also that third party candidate, George Wallace, nabbed five states. So actually, GHWB is more like Humphrey than is Kerry.

Kerry is promoting a better way out of Iraq by utilizing international efforts through the UN. Humphrey is like Bush -- he had to support the status quo. Kerry is more like Nixon. Look, even if Nixon didn't really have any plan to get out of Vietnam, it was the trying that counted to voters back then. This might play again.

I frankly think it will.

2. None whatsoever. It is understood that a vote for a third party is a vote for Bush this time around. Kerry is the only choice to drop the neo-conservative idealists, build international support, get Iraq on its feet, and get the heck out of there.

Of course, the US will probably leave some military presence in Iraq forever, sort of like Germany. We'll probably end up with a METO (Middle East Treaty Organization).

3. I don't really understand the question. I think you mean "anti-Iraq war." It's unfair to criticize him on this because, believing as many did, he thought WMD was a clear and present danger to the US. Well, that turned out not to be true. It would be fair to characterize Kerry as having every bit as much concern for the security of the US as Bush -- and with the added bonus of knowing horse apples when he smells them.

But Kerry fought in an actual war, so he is not anti-war in the broad sense. I am, but Kerry isn't. And let's just say I'm voting for one of the big two this year, so there you have it from one of the radical left peaceniks who thinks war is always a huge waste, and although sometimes unavoidable -- it oftentimes *is* avoidable.

As was the case with Iraq (this is of course my opinion).

Anyway, I don't mind Kerry's centrist politics nor his belonging to the club. He's not the firebrand that Dean is, but then the voters spoke on that difference. Voters seem to like centrists who belong to the club.

I would say Kerry is a 2004 version of Richard Nixon. Nixon took over and escalated an unwinnable war from Johnson, and it appears Kerry will do the same if he wins the election. At least Nixon ran his campaign based on a somewhat reasonable sounding idea of “peace with honor”. Kerry, on the other hand, runs around like the village idiot saying how he is going to bring in other countries to help the United States “manage” Iraq. Like George Bush hasn’t been trying to do this very same thing for over a year now with no luck, because no other foreign leaders are stupid or crazy enough to send their soldiers into the Iraqi slaughterhouse.


I guess it all depends on how big you believe the anti-war crowd is. The Democrats keep saying the anti-war people are just a few, insignificant, far-left whackos. This kind of sounds like what Bush keeps saying about the resistance in Iraq. My personal observation is that the anti-war group is very big and growing in size every day. These people are not going to vote for Kerry no matter how much they hate Bush and this is why I’m predicting Bush will win in November.


Absolutely it is unfair to criticize Kerry for being anti-war. Kerry is pro-war. Kerry helped Bush start the Iraq War and Kerry has made it quite clear that he intends to continue this blood bath if he is elected president.

Kerry being a moderate wouldn't hurt him, any more than it hurt Carter or Clinton (will liberals desert en masse to vote Republican?) -- but he isn't! His voting record is the furthest left in the entire Senate (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm)! How does he get the "moderate" label, except as spin?

I don't think it's fair to call Kerry pro-war and leave it at that. He voted for the war; he condemns it. He voted both for and against the first Gulf War (according to him). He is pro-war and anti-war according to who he's talking to.

1.)Is Kerry a 2004 version of Hubert Humphrey? A guy who is a moderate and who lost support because of it?

I certainly hope he isn't, or at least I hope the outcome is at least different. Hubert Humphrey's nickname was "the Happy Warrior." He was a pretty good guy. His chances for election sank due, in a large part, to Lyndon Johnson dragging his feet in declaring that he would not run again and his failure to provide any sort of public endorsement for Hubert Humphrey.

John Kerry is a moderate as far as national security goes. He is more liberal when it comes to social programs. I see that as a plus.

He has probably lost support because, unlike Dean, he supported the War against Terrorism until George W. Bush made it a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, the real perpetrators of 9/11 notwithstanding. In addition, the poor joker (Kerry) actually believed what George W. Bush was saying about Iraq having WMDs and being a threat to the United States. Bad mistake that--believing the President--and now he's paying for it. As a "reward," the Bush administration is calling him a flip-flopper.

2.)What impact could the anti-war crowd in hurting Kerry's election chances?

A lot of them will be supporting Nader, which means they are biting off their noses to spite their faces. A vote for Nader is certainly a principled vote, but a strategically stupid one.

Obviously, Nader will be taking votes away from Kerry, not Bush. Whether the difference in the number of votes he takes has a decisive impact remains to be seen.

3.)In taking a stance against the protesters, is it unfair to criticize Kerry as being "anti-war"?

Yes, it is. Kerry was anti-Vietnam, but he was not anti-War on Terrorism. He's just against the way Gee Dubya is doing it, as, in my opinion (of course) anyone with half a brain would be.

I feel that I am being pragmatic voting for someone who has the capability of winning and making a difference. While Kerry is not a Dennis Kucinich when it comes to the war, he certainly isn't a Dubya, and that's the bottom line.

I can see how he could disagree with both the president and the protesters. He believes the war should be fought, he just disagrees with the president as to how it is fought. He disagrees with the protesters because he believes that now we are there, we need to see this thing through. I know that I have a Kerry icon, but I don't like his war positon that much. To perhaps elaborate on his views:



and...



and...



From a Kerry speech on the Kerry campaign website-speeches given section