Decision ‘08

Slamming Senator Kerry…

…is such good sport that it’s now spread to the NY Times:

When Senator John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war.

Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry’s views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.

As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal. Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.

In drawing up a schedule for the Wednesday session, the Democratic leadership has arranged for its plan to be debated first, pushing Mr. Kerry and his proposal into the evening, too late for the nightly television news, to starve it of some attention.

Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.

Mr. Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it. His critics say they believe the new stand reflects more politics than principle, and ignores other Democrats’ concern that setting a fixed date will leave those in tough re-election fights open to Republican taunts that they are “cutting and running” in Iraq.

The Democrats’ exasperation has increased in the last week, as they postponed a vote on Mr. Kerry’s amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves. Democrats up for re-election asked him not to propose a fixed date. But Mr. Kerry, several Democrats said, was unwilling to budge from that idea, even though his co-sponsor, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, seemed willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. In the end, Mr. Kerry agreed only to extend his deadline, from Dec. 31 of this year to July 2007.

Playing politics with the war; running to the left of Senator Feingold; an arrogant unwillingness to consider the views of his fellow Democrats. It’s reassuring to see that John Kerry hasn’t lost his golden touch…

10 Responses to “Slamming Senator Kerry…”

1 Fargus Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 7:19 am
Playing politics with the war? You’re going to claim, by what you leave unsaid, that Republicans are innocent of that one?
2 Mark Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 7:25 am
Fargus, your outrage should be with the Times, they printed it, not me:

His critics say they believe the new stand reflects more politics than principle…
3 Mark Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 7:36 am
I should also note that from the context, it’s clear that Democratic critics is meant, and not partisan Republicans like me…
4 Fargus Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 7:38 am
But you’re the one throwing it up there, and editorializing at the end that he’s playing politics with the war. Are you saying you don’t agree with the Times on that?
5 Mark Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 7:50 am
No, I completely agree that Kerry is playing politics with the war - he wouldn’t know a principled stand on Iraq if it bit him in the butt - and I also agree that some Republicans are playing politics with the war. I’ve stated several times that I don’t agree with Rove’s recent implications that the Demcrats are the party of cowardice. Nevertheless, I plead guilty to taking an inordinate amount of pleasure from seeing Kerry ridiculed, particularly when the condemnation is coming from the left…
6 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Harold Meyerson Plays Dumb Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 9:42 am
[…] Again, I must beg to be spared from this faux outrage; so Lieberman is standing outside the big tent? That makes no sense whatsoever. Lieberman’s point is that the tent is not big as far as the progressives are concerned - or at least not big enough for a principled stand in support of the war. And, as we have seen, even Democrats now acknowledge that one of their own, Senator Kerry, is trying to politicize the war for his own benefit. […]
7 mtl Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:16 am
“Playing politics with the war? You’re going to claim, by what you leave unsaid, that Republicans are innocent of that one?”

The distinction is that Kerry is trying to congressionally control this war. I’d just as soon leave that to the military. If Kerry wanted to call a hearing to interview troops on the ground, to determine their opinion, it would have been wiser.
8 DC Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Sport is just what it is. Looks like you’re having fun with the war.
9 Sean P Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Actually, I diagree with the New York Times and agree with a comment on the Real Clear Politics blog. Kerry’s current view is his real view and probably always was. It was during his 2004 Presidential campaign — when Kerry initially voted for the resolution, when he “voted for” the funding for the war “before (he) voted against it”, and when he claimed he had a “secret” plan for winning the war (when he intended to cut and run all along) — that he was playing politics.
10 megapotamus Says:
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I don’t care for this dismissive tack, “playing politics”. on any matter. Politics, for lack of a better word, is what we do. The war SHOULD be a political issue on BOTH sides, if there be only two. What most folks mean really is that the war or whatever issue is IMPROPERLY demagogued and that is certainly a valid point but awaits expiation. Perpetually is the charge laid that Bush is “politicizing” the war. So what? Are we beyond politics? Shouldn’t the most assailing issue of the day be subject to debate? To attack? To defense? Damn right it should be. Politics is about policy, that is, what we do collectively through our government. “Cheap points” do not exist, only points. And “cheap points” are as salutory as cheap celery or cheap gas. Let us contest and not dispute the legitimacy of our opposition. Let us instead (rhetorically) rip the flesh from their bones and leave them for the carion birds. It is easy, frankly, as they have nothing with which to support their daft positions. Shrink not from the fight. Our opponents are unarmed.