[Mb-civic] Dear John: Start Explaining and Fast
ean at sbcglobal.net
ean at sbcglobal.net
Tue Sep 7 23:03:21 PDT 2004
Labor Day Weekend Edition
September 4-6, 2004
Dear John (Kerry)
Start Explaining and Fast
By MARK DONHAM
Several times recently on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, the Shields
part of the long time "Shields and Brooks" political punditry
(opposite's attract; "fair and balanced") team of Washington
"insiders", punditized that, in response to the Brooks part saying
that the New York GOP convention protesters were people "without
a party," the reason, according to Shields, that Kerry wasn't
getting traction in the polls was because of his asinine answer
standing in front of the Grand Canyon several weeks ago that, IF
HE KNEW THEN WHAT HE KNOWS NOW ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, HE
WOULD STILL VOTE FOR IT.
Jon Stewart of the Daily Show put it well shortly after Kerry made
this blunderous statement. He said, referring to Kerry, "Come on
now, that was a softball. Hit it out of the park! All you have to do is
say, NO." Of course Kerry didn't - he said yes. Oh sure, "it wasn't
that simple." He did actually say he would vote to authorize the
president and not for the war, but to the nation this is a distinction
without a difference. And you don't have to be a Republican to feel
that way. We all heard it. We know what was said. As Stewart
went on to bemoan, "is he trying to lose?"
Oh what a clever trap Karl Rove set for Kerry, and how he took the
bait. Bush taunted Kerry in front of the press, asking the press
whether Kerry, knowing then what he knows now, would he still
vote for the war. Of course, the press went to Kerry but at first
Kerry was smart and wouldn't bite. But Kerry couldn't take the
taunting. Pride cometh before the fall! He got baited into
answering. At, of all places, the Grand Canyon, he turned and said
yes. YES?? How could he say "yes?" That continues to boggle my
mind and many others.
Let's see, if we knew then what we know now? That the main
reason for going to war was false, that over 10,000 civilians would
be killed, that a thousand U.S. troops would be killed, that we had
too few soldiers deployed, that we didn't have our humvees
properly armored, that the insurgency would be a lot worse than
anticipated, that the world would generally be opposed to what we
are doing and long term alliances would be damaged, that our
national debt would be out of control and the war would cost us
hundreds of billions with no end in sight, that Iraq and Al Quaeda
weren't connected, that our President had mislead us about a
variety of things related to Iraq, that the US would be torturing
prisoners and violating the Geneva Accords, that we would be
locking up people indefinitely with no civil rights at all, and on and
on. If Kerry knew that all this was going to occur, he would still
vote for the war????? Say what??????
All Kerry had to do was to say no. N. O. No. All he had to do was to
say, well, if I knew that there weren't going to be weapons of mass
destruction found, that a thousand soliders would die, that ten
thousand civilians would die, that it would cost us hundreds of
billions of dollars and no end in sight, that we would be violating
the Geneva Accords and torturing prisoners, that we would be
imprisoning people at Guantonamo Bay indefinitely with no civil
rights at all, that Halliburton and Bechtel would be getting most of
the big U.S. governmental contracts without bids, etc. etc., of
course I wouldn't have voted for it. BBBBBBBBUUUUTTTTTTT
NOOOOOOOOOO!!! He said yes.
Ok, so he said yes. Now what. There are a couple possibilities. One
is that he could admit that he screwed up and made a big boo boo.
We all do that sometimes. Especially with that kind of pressure. He
could say that, but the press would jump on that and say he is flip
flopping again, and that would hurt him. So scratch that. People
like Brooks are just waiting for him to do it. That would give
credibility to their flimsly argument that Kerry is somehow an
extreme flip flopper. (Bush is worse in reality.) But he is going to
have to explain it. This is such a fundamental question with the
Democratic base that it threatens to erode what was rock solid
support under him. This is what Shields has been referring to.
Kerry has to explain in a way that doesn't seem like he is
completely changing positions (again) that he didn't mean "yes" in
the way that we all took it. If he can do that, he has a good chance
to resolidify the base. If he can't, then he has a good chance to
lose. He cannot continue to stick with his current answer, trying to
distinguish between voting for "authorizing the president" and
voting "for the war," and keep the base together. This isn't going
to be easy, but Kerry is a smart guy. Maybe he can do it.
In spite of this, Kerry still has a chance to win, not because of his
greatness but because of the ABB (anybody but bush) principle.
But he has to provide an alternative vision. His unfortunate "yes"
on the key question of the campaign has to be explained, and that
explanation has to be credible. Otherwise we all might be doomed
to the worst three words we could ever hear at this time: "4 more
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D
(up to 3 emails/day). To be removed, or to switch options (option A -
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day)
please reply and let us know! If someone forwarded you this email and you
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which
option you'd like.
Action is the antidote to despair. ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mb-civic