John Callender of lies.com is talking about his current pick in the Democratic presidential race, John Kerry. Kerry was among the throng of Dems who voted to allow GWB to go to war in Iraq. John C. reprinted an interesting quote from the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal:
“For the sake of argument, let’s say Kerry is right and Bush perpetrated a sham. In a hypothetical general-election match-up, who would you rather choose to deal with hostile foreign leaders: a guy who’s capable of pulling off such an elaborate deception, or the sucker who fell for it?”
Good point. But the truth, of course, is even worse. I don’t believe Kerry or really anyone else on Capitol Hill took Bush’s trumped-up Iraq “evidence” seriously. So Kerry wasn’t a “sucker,” but something infinitely worse – a coward who worried more about his political future, about appearing “soft,” than about standing up for what he knew was right. For me personally, that’s a deal-breaker.
Yeah, there’s a side of me that agrees 100% with you.
Then there’s this other side of me that says, well, that’s the kind of game they play in Washington. If someone’s going to succeed in playing that game for long enough to gain the kind of national “stature” and fundraising mojo to realistically compete for the presidency, maybe he has to be a “politician”, in the negative sense that I think one has to acknowledge that, for example, Bill Clinton was.
That same side of me might make the argument that Kerry wasn’t necessarily a coward to make that decision; he may have been making a rational choice about picking his battles, and surviving to fight another day at a time and place of his choosing, rather than giving George Bush, loudly trumpeting his WMD “evidence”, the wherewithal to successfully paint him as a treasonous dove unwilling to do what it takes to defend America against an imminent threat.
I really feel torn in two about this stuff lately. Let’s say you had the power to personally pick the Democratic nominee. And let’s say you had the power to see into the future, and know that if you picked, say, Dean, he would lose in a landslide, and we’d have four more years of a Bush more willing than ever to claim a mandate to push his agenda. But let’s say you also knew that if you compromised some of your principles and picked Kerry, he’d actually win. Which would you choose?
Then the first side of my grabs the second side of me and shakes it by the collar and screams at it to wake up, to take a stand, to be willing to put the cynicism aside and actually fight, dammit, for what’s right, even in the absence of any certainty about the eventual outcome.
And the second side smirks and shakes its head at the first side’s naivete.
And so on. Sigh.
I know what you mean, John. But here’s my answer: if I could look into a crystal ball and see which nominee would beat Bush, of course I would pick that one, no matter what his background. As I’ve said, ham sandwich v. Bush is no contest.
But since I don’t have that crystal ball, I also want a nominee I can get behind. And in this case, I think “doing the right thing” on Iraq and electability are the same thing. I don’t think Dems can win by trying to convince people, as someone else said, that French Vanilla is better than Vanilla.
I think Jon Stewart said it best when he said Joe Lieberman was the candidate for “people who like Bush, but don’t think he’s Jewish enough.”
I think Dean is a better candidate than Kerry, and also more electable. He’s a governor, he’s plain-spoken and doesn’t waffle, he’s fiscally responsible and socially progressive, and has the ability to call Bush out on his foreign policy while not having participated in perpetuating it.
So without my crystal ball, and having to choose a nominee I can support, the Iraq vote becomes pretty important. If Kerry gets the nomination, I’m for him. But in the meanwhile, I want to feel good about who I’m supporting.
John, I was perversely delighted to see you mention both cynicism and naivete near the end of your comment. I’ve suspected for a while that those are two poles which most people’s perspectives oscillate between.
For my part, if I was looking to pick a successful Democratic candidate, I’d pick the one who is more appealing to Democrats, instead of the one who is more appealing to Republicans. Kind of an obvious thing which the GOP seems to have a better grasp of.
I definitely alternate between cynicism and naivete.
I think naivete is the way to go.
Few things are as precious and delicate as innocence.