Home > John Kerry: Wrong Candidate For Democrats On Iraq

John Kerry: Wrong Candidate For Democrats On Iraq

by Open-Publishing - Thursday 9 September 2004
4 comments

In a speech yesterday, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry blasted President Bush for “wrong” choices in the war in Iraq. After taking a beating for most of August and falling behind in the polls, John Kerry is now trying to increase the volume of his attacks and finally differentiate his position with the President on Iraq.

The problem for Democrats is that John Kerry is the wrong candidate for the party on this important issue. With now over 1,000 American fatalities in Iraq, the operation every day looks more like a quagmire, but John Kerry initially supported the war and criticized anti-war candidate Howard Dean during the primaries. Kerry’s belatedly harsh criticism now can be viewed as not only inconsistent, but opportunistic.

Obviously, the Democratic Party’s base wants an authentic anti-war message from their nominee. They also want someone who is consistent, like Howard Dean. However, when they had the opportunity to vote for Dean, the Democratic faithful did not deliver for Dean and supported Kerry instead.

Yet, Kerry is a conflicted candidate with a conflicted message. Partisan Democrats wanted a convention that bashed Bush and the war on Iraq. Instead they watched a convention that was mute about Bush and was all about Vietnam. Many Democrats hated the war in Vietnam, but they nominated a candidate who is a Vietnam veteran. Unfortunately for Democrats, instead of his service being something that Democrats can be proud to support, it is a source of controversy, especially his activities and remarks when he returned to the United States after the war.

Usually in a presidential race with an incumbent embroiled in an unpopular war that has led to the deaths of more than 1,000 Americans and leading an economy that 60% of the electorate say is moving in the wrong direction, the challenger should be comfortably ahead. Such is not the case in 2004, as the Democrats have nominated another flawed, weak, liberal and ineffective presidential candidate.

In this campaign, John Kerry is George Bush’s best friend. If not for Kerry’s stumbling, bumbling campaign, Bush would be behind. Instead, he is ahead by 7-11 points, depending on the poll. If Bush were facing someone like Bill Clinton in this election, he would likely be behind by double digits.

Now, with the conventions over and the campaign progressing, Kerry is in need of a major knockout punch at one of the presidential debates or a big Bush mistake to win the election. With the Bush campaign not making anywhere near the mistakes of the Kerry campaign, the hopes of Democrats rest on John Kerry surprising the country with a strong debate performance. With the conditions in Iraq and the U.S. economy as they are, it is quite surprising that the Democrats now find themselves as the underdog, but, when they nominated John Kerry, Democrats guaranteed such a scenario.

Forum posts

  • This is a very important observation
    "In this campaign, John Kerry is George Bush’s best friend. If not for Kerry’s stumbling, bumbling campaign, Bush would be behind. Instead, he is ahead by 7-11 points, depending on the poll. If Bush were facing someone like Bill Clinton in this election, he would likely be behind by double digits."

    During the primary the media was John Kerry’s best friend. They choose John Kerry, not the American people. And now we see why...because he is the easiest to shred. Dennis Kucinich would have put Bush to shame by now, not to mention he would have exposed the media sham. John Kerry does not have popular support, so it begs the question of how he got the nomination. Diebold has been decertified in CA after the primary. Could it be that John Kerry has the same friends in high places that control diebold results?

    And could it be that John Kerry is now being this pathetic on purpose, because he wants to throw it to ole W.

    It seems that John Kerry has helped Bush out in the past
    "John Kerry & Bush Cabal’s Iran-Contra Conspiracy: Kerry/Bush a cover-up team for 20 yrs"
    http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3234

    Something has gone drastically wrong when the democrats who so desperatly want to vote Bush out, have ’choosen’ the only candidate incapable of winning. Anyone ELSE could beat Bush. Either Kerry IS pathetic, or he is throwing the election, but either way the American people and the WORLD are getting screwed!

    We must find a way to get a new nominee for the democratic party. This is the easiest election to win ever. What we are watching is a ridiculous sham. WE still have time. WE can’t just sit back and watch this happen.

    • isn’t it funny how kerry was the dems choice because his ’war hero’ status made him ’electable’. what happened to his ’electability’? duh- it was all a setup- sorry world but the American public is stupid and apathetic and they are going to accept bush’s ’re-election’ and more of this stupid ’war on terror’.

      i’m afraid we cannot wake the sheeple from the inside, we need the world community to stand up and speak out- like the UN vote 150-6 to tear down the israeli wall, we need the UN to vote US out of Iraq NOW!

      better yet, i call for chavez to punch bush at UN meeting, flip him over and cuff him- call it a global citizen’s arrest- put the village idiot on trial for war crimes- that is the only way to stop this madness.

    • Well you got one thing right - Bush most likely will be re-elected. What you have wrong is the American public. We are not stupid and that is why Bush will remain. The UN?? Please, Kofi is too busy looking for the next payoff and ignoring genocide. I use to think the UN had a role, at this point they are like a senile elderly man roaming the halls of a rest home.

    • I’ve got an even better idea.....instead of "voting the US out of Iraq," how about we vote the UN off of American soil, send it to France and cut the billions of dollars we blow each year propping up these corrupt terrorist sympathizers.