Something I didn't know about the $87 billion, though I probably should have.

[MH1]

Okay, I admit it, I wasn't paying quite as much attention as I should have been at the time it was passed. And since then I haven't quite caught up to the nuances. So I found this interesting, from another DU post (which is worthy of a recommend anyway, imo):


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x254955

...
In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things {procurement contracts for Iraq}, but that provision was stripped from the bill - even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0.

...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1983817,00.html

I've always heard that the key difference on the two bills was that the one JK voted for would have been paid for by rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2%, while the one he voted against would not have been paid for; that's a good enough reason, but...

If I am understanding the above correctly, then to me that is a more compelling reason for voting for the first and against the second. But, perhaps it would be even harder to explain to the average voter.

Thoughts?

[ray of light]

1. your explanantion took longer than 30 seconds...

thus, it's too difficult for the ave. voter.

Besides, the campaign was slow to respond to their meme and thus they made it difficult to overcome the frame the repubs had set up. Frankly, my belief is that Kerry hired more experienced campaigners to help him and was slow or ineffective to respond because he trusted their judgement more than his own. And he thought he left his reputation and his carreer in responsible hands. Instead the ineffectiveness of the campaign led to a disaster.

[wisteria]

2. I wouldn't be that harsh on the campaign. I was no expert at the time

(still not) but I could figure out why you would vote for something in its original form then vote against another version that did not contain the same information. Not everything can be explained in 30 seconds. The public isn't that stupid. The media though- thats another story.

[TayTay]

3. I think this statement was amplified by the RW noise machine.

If memory serves, Sen. Kerry made that statement after he had won the Super Tuesday primaries. I believe that subsequent accounts of that speech note that the Senator was exhausted and was speaking off the cuff when he said the rational, senate-like words to the effect that he had voted for a version of the bill before he against the final version. However, that line was one snippet of a much longer speech that explained why the Bush policies were failing and why Kerry had problems with them.

There are a couple of things to consider here. (Ah, get some rest on the road Senator.) The very flawed Newsweek account of the '04 campaign did accurately note that the Republicans took opposition research very, very seriously. They had a video truck filled with equipment that was used to tape and extract comments from speeches by Kerry for quick turn-around into attack ads. It paid off in this instance. The Repubs knew the value of defining Kerry before he could define himself to the American people. So, they distilled all of what he said into a very misleading ad that claimed that Kerry was all over the place on Iraq. This was untrue, but the damage was done. (BTW, what can Dems learn from this experience. Probably nothing, since Dems would rather attack each other and assign blame than learn from the past, but there are lessons in here for those who care to see them.)

The other thing to consider is the actual debate in mid-October of 2003. There were some really interesting proposals in Congress made by the Democrats that sought to reign in Bush and the Administration in regards to Iraq. I can't summarize it all here. Get your wonk on and head over to the Congressional Record and have a look at the votes for Oct 17, 2003. Just look at some of the Democratic proposals that never made it onto the floor of the Senate because they were tabled. Ahm, things were not as they seemed and we are remembering stuff that didn't really happen. Go check that out, it was one of the most interesting periods of the Congress in terms of dealing with the Iraq War.

[ray of light]

8. yeh. that's what I meant...the r-w machine is louder

And though Kerry responded, the r-w machine refuse to play anything longer than 30 seconds OR required reading above the kindergarten reading level.

Sorry about my clumsiness in making my point.

[MH1]

9. "btw, what can Dems learn from this...Probably nothing..."

Totally agree with your assessment on that one.

Thanks for the other insights, too.

[MH1]

10. I think that is the challenge.

Most voters will let the sound bites wash over them and infiltrate their brain and never look beyond that sound bite. The republicans are just more effective at playing that game than Dems are.

I don't think it was all the campaign team, either. I think the ineffectiveness of McAuliffe's DNC, as well as the tepid support (when that) of so-called "liberal" pundits really did the damage.

[ray of light]

11. maybe I'm wrong to do this, but I tend to mush 'campaign team &

democratic party' together. Then I look at the candidate as the person the team and party is suppose to support--effectively support! And I look at the team and party as people who are suppose to be the eyes, arms, legs for the candidate while the candidate is suppose to be the the arms, legs, mouthpiece for the whole party. Sort of all symbiotic and bound together with a common agenda.

[karynnj]

4. He gave both reasons in 2004 - even mentioning Halliburton.

I agree with you it is as important as how it was funded. I also do think that the answer he gave in the debate - that was what people wanted him to say - that he said it wrong but Bush got the war wrong - was not as good as repeating the two reasons and then - if he wanted saying that. We need to post those 2 reasons whenever anyone mentioned it - he had a very good reason for the protest vote - he simply should have been louder about the reasons.

[ProSense]

5. He explained it in April 04

MR. RUSSERT: And what you're referring to there at the end is that you wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut in order to pay for the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq. And yet, just a few weeks before that vote, you were on "Face the Nation" and this is what you said. "I think we need to roll back the top end of the Bush tax cut." Question...

SEN. KERRY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ..."If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

And yet you voted against that very amount of money.

SEN. KERRY: There's nothing inconsistent in either of those statements and that advertisement displays really how sad and full of distortion, almost pathetic, the Republican approach to this is. First of all, they had a series of no's: Mr. Kerry on this; no. Mr. Kerry on this; no. It wasn't a series of votes. It was one vote and that is a distortion to the American people.

Secondly, that vote would never have prevented any of the body armor, ammunition or anything from getting to our troops. That's a lie. That's just an outright lie. In fact, the president of the United States himself, Tim, threatened to veto that very bill if we put health care for Reservists in the bill. The president threatened to veto that bill if we had loans instead of a grant. Think of that. The president threatened to veto that bill, and yet he is now accusing me for voting no.

Secondly, I voted to have that bill paid for by reducing the tax cut to the wealthiest Americans so we would be responsible fiscally and that was a way to do it. Now, when they weren't willing to do that and they weren't willing to change their policy to bring other nations to the table to reduce the cost to Americans, you're darn right I voted against it because one of the lessons I learned in Vietnam is when the policy is wrong, fix it, and I voted to fix it.

[MH1]

7. Oooh, he used the "L" word.

And some people at DU say that he never used that word during the campaign. Hmm. I'll have to save this one.

[sandnsea]

6. Their propaganda machine is better

The same thing happened when Kerry said the war was going to cost $200 billion (or whatever the figure was). The noise machine ramped up and lies and ridicule took the place of rational debate. Nothing he specifically said or did really matters. I don't think he should have went hunting, for example, but that didn't win or lose him the election. It was the noise machine. People who focus on 2 or 3 mistakes either never liked Kerry in the first place, or just don't get it. I think the campaign tried to focus on 'fear and smear' as a tactic, but I don't think our own Dems understood that approach because they still don't get it themselves. Look at the social security campaign, it took every single Democrat in both parties repeating 'privatize' for a good 6 months before it was killed. Kerry didn't have that kind of support on anything. It looks like he didn't even have the support of his own VP. Maybe he would have been better off to choose Gephardt, I don't know. But I think we should just keep focused on the noise machine and every time they ramp up on Obama or Edwards, point it out. Look what they're doing with the Obama-Osama thing, that isn't going to go away.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. They Needed Tighter Press Releases, Better Coordination With

Fellow Democrats, an organized effort through the internet to get activists blasting the media with factual letters, and using your VP as a surrogate attack dog. The Happy Sunshine of Edwards was the antithesis of Dick Cheney's role as riding shotgun for Bush. It's hard to be sunny and still blast the media like a jackhammer.

As far as a "noise machine," the GOP understands the strategic value of information overload. The media can only handle so much information in one shot, so they selectively blast out huge piles of information and watch as the waters muddy.

And the media are also a bunch of lazy, egotistical hacks.