« Surprising Development | Main | Margins »
Kerry Wins!
David Adesnik explains why John Kerry will win the election:
On a similar note, Kerry backers like Kevin Drum have decided that the best way to defend Kerry is to admit that he's a fence straddler and then point out that Bush has been far from consistent on a number of important issues as well.Fortunately for Kerry, the number of Americans who've held a consistently pro-war position (like David and the president) is quite a bit less than a majority, and the number of Americans who see Iraq as the most important issue is far less than a majority. This whole remark is, I think, rather typical Oxbloggian myopia about what's at stake in the election, but that's another story. On a related note, I communicated with David a little while backing asking if he could try and take some time to explain what, exactly, it is that he thinks Kerry will do with Iraq policy that will be so terrible? Does he think that right now Iraq is on a glide path to a happy democratic future that a Kerry administration will somehow disrupt? It's a complicated question, so I'm not shocked that I haven't gotten an immediate reply, but I'd still like to know.I agree with Kevin, except the fact is that Kerry has flip-flopped on Iraq, which I care about a helluva lot more than stem cells or a Patients' Bill of Rights.
August 13, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834211c5853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry Wins!:
» Keepin it real from Julie Saltman
Sing it, Matt. Not only did Oxblog never make a convincing case for the war in the first place, they've failed to adequately respond to criticism, as Yglesias points out. If Adesnick ever does respond, I do hope Yglesias will share it. Oxblog owes us... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 13, 2004 2:56:07 PM
Comments
It's nice to hear someone admit this. A lot of people who supported the war have decided to forget that before it started, it was far from popular.
The war isn't a litmus test with the American people, anymore than being anti-war was a litmus test with the democratic electorate. No matter how much the right wants to they were.
Posted by: Soul | Aug 13, 2004 9:55:33 AM
It's the lack of "freedom, blah blah blah" rhetoric, which is like a balm to Oxblog's soul.
Posted by: praktike | Aug 13, 2004 9:57:53 AM
His big issue is foreign policy and he complains that Kerry straddles more than Bush.
Does he realize that one of these two is an incumbent, and the other is not? One actually is making decisions, and the other is not. There are advantages and disadvantages to each position.
If you want to know how Bush would be on foreign policy as a challenger, I think the word that comes to mind is "humble". Talk about flip-flopping or straddling. [9-11 changed everything!]
Posted by: theCoach | Aug 13, 2004 10:16:04 AM
I almost never click on your oxblog links. Who cares? I clicked on this one, just to remind myself of why.
David Adesnik appears to be yet another cowardly blogger afraid to turn on comments.
Given the lack of manpower our Army and our nation now face in defending ourselves around the world, why shouldn't I consider any war supporter who is eligible, and not signing up, a hypocrite? Answer me that.
Posted by: david.who | Aug 13, 2004 10:46:17 AM
Shall I mention even a few Bush flip-flops on foreign policy, after 9/11?
Let's see - Afghanistan was to be freed, turned into a democracy, yadda yadda yadda. Now - neglect and hope (successfully) that the press ignores it.
Osama Bin Forgotten ^H^H^H^H Ladin - 'dead or a live'. Now, 'just one individual'.
Iraq - WMD's, terrorists. Then, democracy and freedom. Now - hope that it doesn't get too much worse before it gets better.
UN - use, ignore, beg for help.
Allies - use, ignore, beg for help.
Posted by: Barry | Aug 13, 2004 10:54:38 AM
I think John Kerry trims his sails to the wind (ah I see why the current metaphor is "flip flopper"). However, the example of the vote on authorizing Bush to invade Iraq is obviously unconvincing. First, as Kerry has explained ad nauseum, the authorization had two effects, first it meant Bush could use the threat to invade for leverage, second it meant Bush was, in fact, free to invade. Bush chose to present congress with the choice between an unrestrained president (bad) and a president whose bluff had been called (also bad).
Furthermore Kerry's one vote was not decisive. He would have hurt himself politically for nothing if he had voted no. The fact that he is unwilling to hurt himself politically for nothing does not mean that he is not willing to hurt himself politically for something.
Kerry would certainly not have invaded Iraq if he had been president. Some Democrats would really be flip flopping if they argued against the invasion now (Leiberman and star flip flopper of all time Gephart). Kerry is clearly not one of them. His position on Iraq has been consistent. This is one of the things regularly reported in the Washington Post towards the end or articles which prominently display Bush distortions and tell only the patient reader that they are distortions.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | Aug 13, 2004 11:20:54 AM
Just as a side note, Robert, this tendency to bury important information many paragraphs down is, of course, one of the things that the WaPo criticized itself for about its prewar coverage and that it clearly has zero intent to change.
david, i couldn't agree more; i have no idea why matthew is interested in the jejune commentary of adesnik....
Posted by: howard | Aug 13, 2004 11:29:47 AM
The premise that Kerry has flip-flopped on the war is false. Kerry's position has been consistent from the beginning: he voted to authorize force because he didn't want to tie Bush's hands in pressuring Saddam to accept inspectors. That doesn't in the slightest commit Kerry to being "for the war".
Adesnik and his ilk think they have Kerry on the horns of a dilemma, but they don't. Just because you think the cops ought to carry guns doesn't mean you can't criticize one of them when he shoots an unarmed man.
Posted by: son volt | Aug 13, 2004 11:51:53 AM
"asking if he could try and take some time to explain what, exactly, it is that he thinks Kerry will do with Iraq policy that will be so terrible? Does he think that right now Iraq is on a glide path to a happy democratic future that a Kerry administration will somehow disrupt?"
Good question. I mean, Bush has fucked up everything he's touched -- economy, budget, job creation, foreign policy, fighting "terra," world opinion, etc. -- I don't know how anyone thoughtful can think it best to stick with him.
If God didn't speak through W, I'd be scarec.
Posted by: MattB | Aug 13, 2004 12:05:03 PM
MattB, it's both important and amaszing to realize that the people supporting Bush don't believe that he's screwed things up. Of course, they also believe that he served his country in the TANG (rather than himself), was not AWOL, made his money honestly through hard work and is a Christian who has the best interests of the USA in his heart. While Kerry is a cowardly rich boy.
Posted by: Barry | Aug 13, 2004 12:25:18 PM
Roughly a third, maybe less, of the American public firmly opposed the war. A third strongly favored it. Another third had their doubts, but set them aside in deference to Bush. They said, "We assume that as president you know what you're doing, but God help you if you don't."
Now Bush, since he obviously didn't know what he was doing, has lost the support of more than half of that middle third.
In the middle third was John Kerry.
Posted by: ShrubRemover | Aug 13, 2004 12:27:32 PM
I understand the simple distinction between voting to authorize war (which Mr. Kerry did) and supporting the President's decision to actually use that authorization (which Mr. Kerry didn't).
It's a very simple distinction. So why has Mr. Kerry done such a poor job of explaining that distinction?
For example, I don't believe Mr. Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq. So why can't Mr. Kerry simply say so?
Posted by: Arjun | Aug 13, 2004 12:28:54 PM
Because he is a terrible politician who has trouble condensing his nuance into something easily digestible, he is overly concerned about not offending possible voters, he rightly fears the accusations of straddling and flip-flopping, and most people don't understand the types of dinstinctions we're discussing, so he'd just sound pedantic.
But I'm stunned that he and his people haven't dedicated some serious time to figuring this out. The "cop with a gun" analogy is a good one, and I've seen Edwards explain their stance fairly succinctly, but Kerry needed to get this hammered out a while ago.
Posted by: EH | Aug 13, 2004 1:14:43 PM
Fortunately for Kerry, the number of Americans who've held a consistently pro-war position (like David and the president) is quite a bit less than a majority, and the number of Americans who see Iraq as the most important issue is far less than a majority.
Matthew's analysis is flawed.
Ther relevant inquiry is whether the number of voters who've held a consistently pro-war position (and will vote on that basis - i.e., people such as me), when added to the number of people who will vote for Bush for all the other reasons (e.g., tax cuts, abortion, etc.), add up to a majority.
I think they will.
Posted by: Al | Aug 13, 2004 2:08:45 PM
For example, I don't believe Mr. Kerry would have gone to war in Iraq. So why can't Mr. Kerry simply say so?
Kerry may not have gone to war under the same circumstances Bush did. But that's a far cry from saying that Kerry would not have wanted to revisit the Iraq question in light of the opportunity that 9/11 presented. Kerry can quite plausibly argue that he would have done the same thing Bush did--until Bush green-lighted the invasion.
e.g., "I would have given the inspections time to work."
Posted by: son volt | Aug 13, 2004 2:47:18 PM
I continue to maintain that Kerry is wrong to use "stability" as the measure for an Iraq from which America could conceivably withdrawal. This plays well with the anti-war left, because it implies at least that the war was conducted with tremendous ineptitude, if not that it might have been a mistake in the first place, but the American mainstream does not want to believe that we expended all those lives, not to mention dollars, on a fruitless enterprise. Kerry doesn't need to say that we're going to stick around until Iraq becomes Sweden, just that as president he intends to leave a "better" Iraq. Perhaps that means only local and regional elections, and a reformist autocracy in Baghdad, with plans for national elections at some future date (I mean, who the hell knows if any elections are going to happen next year). Perhaps that means a weak central government, existing mostly to divide up Iraq's oil revenues and raise an army, with security provided largely by local and regional thugs (hell, it seems to be working in Afghanistan - if you can put up with the opium trade, and does anyone really have any better ideas for Afghanistan's rural majority in the short term? destroy all the poppies and they all could go back to killing each other - it's better to confine the killing-each-other part largely to criminals.) And if Kerry wants people to believe he's an optimist, he has to show them he is.
Posted by: Ken | Aug 13, 2004 3:04:46 PM
Isn't it "stunning" that someone as incompetent as Kerry (re: his "inability" to communicate his position to the satisfaction of a minority of web posters) is actually leading in the Presidential race and by all measures running an excellent campaign?
Just how is this possible?
Posted by: Termination Shock | Aug 13, 2004 3:18:31 PM
Well, I think the process of achieving democracy in Iraq probably for a while translates into continuous moves to weaken the strongest anti-democratic faction, which at times will look like the attack on Sadr going on now.
There are several levels to the hawk's worries about Kerry, from strutting in a flight suit because it makes Adesnik feel tough, to wanting a base from which to transform the Middle East by force, to Kerry not willing to use violence against the majority to prevent an Algeria scenario.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 13, 2004 3:43:47 PM
As a fan of Oxblog, let me say this in Mr. Adesnik's defense: he didn't say that Americans care more about Iraq policy, but rather only that he, Mr. Adesnik, cares more about Iraq policy. Mr. Yglesias is right about Americans' views and priorities, and therefore, Mr. Kerry will win the election. (I don't know yet whether that likely outcome is for the best, although at present I am somewhat inclined to vote for Mr. Kerry myself.)
However, this doesn't necessarily reflect "Oxbloggian myopia about what's at stake in the election". It is theoretically possible, after all, that most Americans' views and priorities are wrong.
Posted by: Arjun | Aug 13, 2004 4:13:59 PM
I regret my posting from a few hours ago, and here's why: I hadn't read an excellent article in Slate magazine by William Saletan, which nicely explains why Mr. Kerry would not have gone to war in Iraq.
The best line of that article belongs to Mr. Edwards, who I must admit is simply brilliant. A reporter asks him why the U.S. should have gone through the trouble of building alliances for the Iraq war if there weren't any WMD. Mr. Edwards said, quite simply, "We would have found out."
Posted by: Arjun | Aug 13, 2004 4:28:01 PM
Ha! In the end, the American Public will see John Kerry for exactly what he is - an opportunist who wants power, but will do nothing with it.
So after picking a 'brilliant' VP, giving a 'terrific' Convention speech, and travelling 24-7 around the US, with all the bumps these things bring - the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Bush up 48-46 with a 51% approval rating.
Meanwhile, the economy is humming along, adding millions of new jobs, 80% of Afghans are registered to vote in the upcoming elections, Saddam is in a jail cell and the Iraqi soccer team is winning games at the Olympics.
We haven't even gotten to the Republican Convention and the 9/11 anniversary, and Bush is starting to pull away.
Meanwhile, the wheels are starting to come off the Kerry campaign with the endless changing stories, nuanced positions, voting for and against, holidays in Cambodia or somewhere else, and that's just the tip of the iceberg!
I'll bet you'll all be really surprised when George W. Bush wins in a landslide.
ATTACK TERRORISTS NOT PRESIDENTS!
Posted by: Larry | Aug 13, 2004 5:01:23 PM
Ha! In the end, the American Public will see John Kerry for exactly what he is - an opportunist who wants power, but will do nothing with it.
So after picking a 'brilliant' VP, giving a 'terrific' Convention speech, and travelling 24-7 around the US, with all the bumps these things bring - the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Bush up 48-46 with a 51% approval rating.
Meanwhile, the economy is humming along, adding millions of new jobs, 80% of Afghans are registered to vote in the upcoming elections, Saddam is in a jail cell and the Iraqi soccer team is winning games at the Olympics.
We haven't even gotten to the Republican Convention and the 9/11 anniversary, and Bush is starting to pull away.
Meanwhile, the wheels are starting to come off the Kerry campaign with the endless changing stories, nuanced positions, voting for and against, holidays in Cambodia or somewhere else, and that's just the tip of the iceberg!
I'll bet you'll all be really surprised when George W. Bush wins in a landslide.
ATTACK TERRORISTS NOT PRESIDENTS!
Posted by: Larry | Aug 13, 2004 5:01:50 PM
I was hoping to vigorously defend Mr. Adesnik against the anti-war left, but it appears I won't get my chance, because the right-wing comment that followed mine is easily refutable, and is therefore a more likely target of criticism than my unsuccessful attempt at provocation.
That's OK. I'll defend Mr. Adesnik against the anti-war left on some other occasion.
Posted by: Arjun | Aug 13, 2004 5:52:57 PM
Hey Larry,
You freepers had best hope John Kerry is elected this fall, because four more years of George W Bush means eight years of Hillary Clinton after that.
Ask yourselves which is worse for you.
Everything underhanded, smarmy, and vindictive the Clinton administration did to their political opponents (most of it was under the radar, but audits, investigations, etc) was not orchestrated by Bill, who wants nothing more than to be liked by everyone, but you know who.
And all that was before the Patriot Act...
If you don't think that this is a woman who wants and will get revenge both for herself and every last American liberal, you've got another thing comin mofo.
Expect every last one of your sordid, shitty little lives to become genuinely unpleasant should Mrs. Clinton become president.
Cheers.
ATTACK FASCISTS AND THEIR GOONISH HACKS, NOT DEMOCRATS.
Posted by: Ihatefreepers | Aug 13, 2004 10:37:37 PM
I agree with ihatefreepers. Let's send Larry's IP address to the Kerry camp (and Hillary Clinton) for safe keeping, so he can be added to the vast list of moronic Republicans to be audited every year by the next Democratic administration. Maybe a little surveillance too...Any secrets Larry?
Posted by: JoeinSeattle | Aug 13, 2004 10:50:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
