Decision ‘08

Ah, Kerry: The Priceless Buffoon

I ask you, with my tongue only slightly in cheek: what would we do for entertainment without John Kerry? Michael Crowley has a good piece in The New Republic looking at the inside game behind Kerry’s filibuster, and says Reid, Schumer, and all the Democratic presidential hopefuls were forced to vote for the move against their will, knowing full well that the ‘brook no opposition’ activists were just waiting to skewer them (of course, they did anyway):

So what explains Kerry’s decision? It may be that he really believes Alito is an intolerable radical. But so do many other Democrats, like Schumer, who still concluded a filibuster was a net loser politically. Kerry presented his move as a matter of principle: “I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future,” he declared. “I know this is flying against some of the sort of political punditry of Washington.” Yet his actions were entirely consistent with someone wooing liberal activists in preparation for the 2008 presidential primaries. From his escalating criticism of the Iraq war to his recent public quip about a possible Bush impeachment (aides insist it was a joke), Kerry is sounding more and more intent on challenging Clinton from the left. His Alito joust has made him a champion for Democratic pro-choice and civil rights leaders. He has also impressed activists in the liberal blogosphere–including at DailyKos.com, where he posted an explanation of his filibuster move. But even some liberal bloggers smelled a rat. At the site MyDD.com, the influential blogger Matt Stoller called Kerry’s decision “a classic example of ‘get points for trying’ politics … a way for Senators to get credit from the left-wing of the party without having to actually do anything or stop anything…. The attitude that the insiders have towards us is that we are a stupid ATM set up to feed their ineffectiveness.” Poor John Kerry. It takes real talent to be trashed by the very people to whom you are trying to pander.

What should Hillary’s strategy be? Concentrate on Mark Warner - John Kerry has no chance.

I sure hope he stays in the race, though - life is much more entertaining when he’s in the headlines…

8 Responses to “Ah, Kerry: The Priceless Buffoon”

1 The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Things to Read / Weekend Open Trackbacks 2.3.06 Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:29 am
[…] The UCLU Fumbles Again by Woman Honor Thyself (thats a blog of the month). The War Against Democracy by Third World County (another blog of the month). Wealth Transfer by Marc Cooper (a must read blog of the left) Bush, Democrats Talk ‘Good Will’ But Prepare for War by Morton Kondracke via Real Clear Politics. (Mort is my kind of Liberal I really want to interview him some day). Ah, Kerry: The Priceless Buffoon By Decision08 Muhammad Cartoon by Aaron’s CC The Real Reason for the Global Warming Yelps By Brainster (you have to read this one) […]
2 David M. Smith Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
Hi Mark,

Mark Warner seems to me to be very similar to Bill Clinton. He’s not really a moderate, or a liberal ideologue; he is a wet finger pragmatic. Kerry, and I also believe Gore and Edwards, will be appealing to the Democratic base in the primaries. I just don’t see how any Democrat can win their party’s nomination without tossing lots of red meat to the lions. How is Warner ever going to appeal to that crowd and then be viable in the general election?
3 Penelope Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
OK guys, remember this is coming from a woman, Do you REALLY believe that Mr. Hillary Clinton has a chance in hell of winning? anything?
4 Mark Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Well, David, I think Warner will run as the ‘electable’ candidate. Feingold will get the base, should he run, I think…and many Democrats will be in ‘Hillary Can’t Win’ mode…

We’ll see…right now, I think Warner’s in a pretty strong position….
5 David M. Smith Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Hi Mark,

The National party’s don’t have a way to determine electability. Who was the last candidate who was nominated because they were electable? Bob Dole? How did that nomination work out?

Primary voters vote for ideology. A pragmatist can win a general election, but a pragmatist will struggle to get nominated. Bill Clinton ran against the weakest field of primary candidates in history in 1992, including Jesse Jackson, and he still struggled to be nominated. After moving to the left in the primaries, he only got 42% of the votes in the general election. If you remember, he picked Al Gore because Al Gore was considered the extreme right of the Democrat party at the time.

I don’t see where anything important has changed since the 2004 election. Democrats may be tired of loosing, but they are not moderating in order to win. If anything, the center of the Democrat party is moving to the left. The Republican center has moved to the right as well. Status quo for as far as the eyes can see. The primaries will be fun, but in the end, the only states that have a chance to flip are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

Hi Penelope,

I can’t imagine Hillary winning anything, but I just don’t think like anyone who would vote for her. However, she has never even been in a close election. By this time next year, she still will never have been in a close election. If voters are inclined to vote based on electability, they may see her as having the best chance.
6 Dennis Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Kerry is just astounding. He doesn’t have a tin ear; it must be made of titanium or something. I have a hard time believing the Angry Left won’t see through his tactics - wait until you’re absolutely certain a filibuster won’t happen, and then jump in and act like the world-champion filibusterer in the hopes the base will just follow you like a hungry dog.

But even if the tactic works, why is he trying to flank Hillary from the left? Wasn’t it just two years ago that Dean made a big sound and fury from the left, and the presumably moderate Kerry swamped him? Does he really think he lost in 2004 because the rabid anti-Bush crowd wasn’t rabid enough?

Penelope, I think Hillary has a pretty good chance of winning, particularly if the Republicans nominate someone seen as a social conservative first and foremost. The more libertarian-minded wing of Bush’s supporters (such as myself) have been kept in the fold because of the war on terror. Hillary’s got much better bona fides on that than her more liberal compatriots. If I were faced with a choice between her and a Republican who seemed more upset by gay marriage than Osama bin Laden, I’d be very tempted to vote for her.

My guess is that in the end, the Angry Left will be no more successful in choosing the Democratic nominee in 2008 than they were in 2004, though they’ll certainly make a racket. If they are successful, the Democratic Party is in bigger trouble than I realized.
7 Mark Says:
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Well, David, I remember reading countless articles saying Kerry was no good, but electable, while Dean was the preferred candidate, but let’s not go his way, because he can’t win…
8 David M. Smith Says:
February 5th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Hi Mark,

If my memory is correct, which is sometimes doubtful, I remember that many commentators did question whether or not Senator Kerry was electable. A whole bunch of pragmatic democrats were pushing for Edwards because he was perceived as being more electable due to his southern appeal.