Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I would say that one need only look at the Connecticut race beween Lamont and Lieberman to realize that there is a *massive* split even among traditional Democrats over the specifics of the war and the approach to the issues surrounding it. Kerry just added more fuel to that split.
But there the choice was between two different Democrats and which would run. People who are treating the election as a mandate against the administration aren't going to swing Republican over this.
Except that the primary argument against the administration *is* over the issue of the Iraq war. That's far and away the biggest thing, right? And that's *exactly* the issue difference between Lamont and Lieberman.
When a long term member of a political party loses his own party's primary in a party stronghold state (Conneticut is incredibly Liberal), then runs as an independant and is ahead by double digits to win, that shows an incredible split within that party. There's just no way around that. And in this specific case it shows a split between voters who think that the war was/is a mistake and those who dont,
even among Democrat voters (heck. Especially among Democrat voters). This issue is a wedge issue, even if lots of people don't realize it.
This is doubly critical since the issue isn't just over the war as a broad concept but specifically whether one "supports" the war. Lieberman voted for the war. He's stated many times that while he disagrees with some aspects of how the war is running, he supports the president in the war itself. Lamont does not. That's virtually the only difference between those two.
When Kerry makes a slip that implies that the soldiers in Iraq are "stuck" there because they're uneducated, it brings the entire issue crashing around the Dems. It highlights the belief that some oppose the war, not because it's the wrong thing to do, but purely because Bush and the Republicans are the ones running it (and are of course taking advantage of the uneducated along the way!). And some see that as incredibly dangerous. Even if we accept that Kerry meant only to bash Bush it's still problematic since it still highlights the issue of whether members of congress have an obligation to support their commander in chief during a time of war. Which, I might add is *still* exactly in line with the Lieberman/Lamont split.
Either way you look at it, Kerry's words just highlighted an issue that Dems would really rather have not been brought up. As long as the spotlight isn't on them, they can kinda brush the Lamont's under the rug and hope no-one notices the number of Dems who hold that degree of contempt for the president and the war (and those who fight it). Kerry's slip accidentally focused the view of the country on exactly that issue. Anyone who was on the fence about whether or not Dems would be bad to have in power during this conflict will have a lot more to think about now...
Quote:
The thrust of the Foley situation was not just that Foley was doing what he was doing, it was the spectre of a widespread cover-up among high ranking House officials who "knew" what was going on and brushed it off. Without the stories of "I told so-and-so about this in 2003", the Foley case wouldn't have had the potental impact it did.
Sure. But the thrust of the Kerry situation is not just what Kerry said, but the spectre of widespread belief of the same "anti-war/anti-soldier - no matter the cost to the country" attitude among other high-ranking Democrats who hold those views but have been concealing them until after they get in power. Without the continuous talking points of Republicans saying "This is what Dems will do with the War on Terror if they get power", it *also* would not have the impact that it has had.
And at the end of the day, which do you think *really* concerns voters more? A vast right wing conspiracy to conceal that fact that some of their members are gay? Or an over-the-top anti-war left who would turn back the clock on anti-terror to 2001?
If you don't think that resonants with voters, I think you're crazy. All Republicans have to do is keep talking about how various Dem leaders voted against the Patriot Act, and against NSA surveilance, and against tracking banking records of terrorist groups, and opposed interrogation of terrorists, and fought for granting of constitutional rights to terrorists, etc, etc, etc...
That would sound like rhetoric to some prior to Kerry opening his mouth largely because most of the voters simply aren't that informed on these things. But put that together with Kerry bashing the troops/Bush, and you've got a pattern of Dem leaders who are more interested in fighting Republicans then terrorists.
Quote:
I think you're misguided to call Kerry the face of the Democratic party. You're welcome to disagree but I think most people just think of him as "failed presidental candidate". If you asked me to say who the "face" was, or at least who the most media-popular names are, I'd throw out H. Clinton, Pelosi and Obama before Kerry.
Sure. To *us*. But we read the political articles and follow events. The majority of voters have likely never heard of Pelosi, maybe know of Clinton (mostly because she was married to Bill Clinton), maybe have heard of Obama, but likely know *nothing* specific about their politics unless they happen to live in a state represented by any of those people.
But every voter knows Kerry. He may not be the face of the Dem party to you, but to them he is. He was the Dem presidential candidate just two years ago. By definition, in the eyes of most Americans, that makes him the head of the Dem party. He's the guy they choose to represent them nationally. Thus, they have to assume that his beliefs and positions tie into broad Dem beliefs and positions.
It's not helped by the fact that as I've pointed out many times, Dems seem to be remarkably public-shy when it comes to their leaders. Unless you've been watching the CNN or Fox political shows, you've probably never heard *any* speeches or statements of significance from any Dem leader in the last couple years. They've been keeping a very low profile. Kerry ends up being the voice of Dems by default. No one else has stepped up to the plate...
Quote:
Kerry hasn't even been in the first tier news stories lately until this happened. Maybe I'm wrong though -- I probably read and listen more than the average person so my perception might be distorted. But I certainly don't think this compares as a "wedge issue" to divide Democratic support. It might trim off independants (I doubt it but it might) but I don't see anyone flipping parties over it.
You are correct that it's not going to trim off Dems who weren't already triming off anyway. However, it's *huge* among independants. I think far moreso then you think. Alot of the voters that Dems are counting on are actually independants. Heh. It's almost a joke that independants are Dems who don't like to call themselves Dems. Those are the guys who'll look at this and possibly be swayed as a result. In exactly the way the high rate of independants in Connectecut is why Lieberman is winning that race by a large margin. It shows that the strength of the Dem party has not been in card carrying Dem voters, but in the independants who overwhelmingly tend to vote Dem. But they're independants for a reason. They choose not to call themselves Dems because there's something (usually multiple somethings) that they don't agree with the Dems on. The question is really going to be "Is Bush/Iraq bashing one of those things?".
Again. If Connectecut is any indicator, I think it *is* one of those things. We'll find out in 5 days of course...
Edited, Nov 2nd 2006 at 6:33pm PST by gbaji
