Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “John Kerry's "Murtha Moment"”

« Go North, Young Chix | Main | The Gift That Keeps On Giving »

June 15, 2006

John Kerry's "Murtha Moment"

Hatched by Dafydd

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA, 100%) has been reflecting on his presidential campaign: on the one hand, he did better in the primaries than former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who ran on a radical anti-war platform; on the other hand, Kerry was dogged throughout the general election season by demands to know why he had voted for the war.

But on the other hand, he came up with an answer to why he was still supporting it: "I actually voted against the $87 billion before I voted for it." But on the other hand, that answer didn't sit well with the electorate.

But on the other hand, in his upcoming campaign for the 2008 presidency, he has Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Carpetbag, 100% -- "have war chest, will travel") running incongruously to his right; but on the other hand, the Democratic primary voters seem even further to the left than they were in 2004.

Having run out of hands, Kerry finally decided that this time, he will take the Al Gore route: he will run far, far to the left. Accordingly, he has denounced himself for voting for the Iraq War and for supporting it all these years. (We'll see whether Kerry will vote against the $94.5 billion compromise funding legislation next week -- which includes $68.5 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan; "I actually voted against the $68.5 billion before I voted for it.")

And in expiation for his sins, Kerry demanded that the Senate vote on his proposal to withdraw all but the most essential troops from Iraq "by year's end."

Kerry began working on submitting a formal version of this bill. Alas, he was a laggard... and he allowed Assistant Majority Leader (Majority Whip) Mitch McConnell (R-KY, 100%) to get the jump on him:

The Senate vote unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Kerry protested in his angriest airy monotone, but to no avail:

Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly.

Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week.

And of course, the result fell out just as did the House vote on the Murtha Amendment to "redeploy" U.S. forces in Iraq to "over the horizon" positions (that is, outside the country): on the Kerry amendment, the Senate voted 93 to 6 to reject setting a timetable for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq. Murtha tried to save face by voting against his own resolution; Kerry, however, is made of sterner stuff: he joined with five other Democrats (and no Republicans) to vote in favor of his own proposal:

Barbara Boxer (CA, 100%);
Tom Harkin (IA, 100%);
Edward M. Kennedy (MA, 95%).
John Kerry (MA, 100%);
Russ Feingold (WI, 100%);
Robert Byrd (WV, 95%);

Remember those names, gentle readers; they are the face of today's Democratic Party... the face of retreat and surrender.

In the meanwhile, the Democrats are not yet out of the woods:

The [Senate] vote came alongside a daylong debate in the House, where Republicans defended the war as key to winning the global struggle against terrorism while Democrats excoriated President Bush and his policies.

"We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil it inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The war was "a grotesque mistake," countered the Democratic House leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. "The administration continues to dig a hole. They refuse to come up and see the light," she said.

The political subtext was clear from the outset.

"Is it al-Qaida or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate," said Republican Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia, attacking war critics as defeatists who do not deserve re-election.

Republicans in both the House and the Senate are finally starting to wake up to the fact that an election looms, and that it will be bitterly contested on both domestic and foreign-policy fronts. For the latter, no foreign issue is as politically important (at the moment) as the Iraq War: unless Republicans can turn around some public sentiment on that war, at least among wayward Republicans, they could lose heavily on November 7th.

So they have begun to stage a series of votes that will force Democrats and Republicans to state firmly where they stand. In the Senate, they forced Democrats to repudiate en masse two of their likely presidential candidates: Feingold and Kerry. The alternative was for the Democrats to acquiesce in labeling themselves the "cut and run" party.

And in the House, after the "impassioned" debate, Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL, 100%) will force a vote on whether the Iraq War is or is not part of the Global War on Terror:

Republicans arranged for the House debate to culminate in a vote either late Thursday or Friday on legislation - a [sense of the House] resolution - that labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

This is excellent work so far. You know it's effective for the Republicans by the squeals of outrage from Democrats, accusing the GOP of playing "partisan games." But we need a series of such votes on domestic wedge-issues, too -- from taxes to same-sex marriage to partial-birth abortion to federal control of the schools vs. school vouchers.

The purpose of such votes is to show the differences between the parties... or in some cases, as with the Iraq votes, to show that however much the Democrats may bluster about having better ideas, in fact they have no ideas at all and are reduced to parroting the GOP. Armed with that information, voters can choose whether to vote Republican or Democratic for their own representatives and senators.

This vote, like every vote, is a choice -- not a "referendum."

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 15, 2006, at the time of 3:30 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/857

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

*EXCELLENT* post!!!

...the Senate voted 93 to 6 to reject setting a timetable for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq.

On one hand...on the other hand...But on the other hand...

John Murtha will seriously *CHOKE* when he faces the House vote on “whether the Iraq War is or is not part of the Global War on Terror”. i want to see that *CHOKING* photo...so to speak.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at June 15, 2006 4:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

monkyboy said:

Now we have to wait and see if China will lend us enough money to stay in Iraq next year...

monkyboy,

Clearly, you don't use Stratfor, and you don't even keep up with recent (hidden) MSM news.

Just this week, Business Week ran..."China: Big Economy, Bigger Peril?"

Today, Stratfor ran this:

Geopolitical Diary: China's Economy, Out of Control

Basically, don't look for China to have any "money" to loan...

In the case of China, it is the speed bump that is the brick wall. Slowing down is dangerous and speeding up disastrous.

Communists make me smile...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at June 15, 2006 4:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

John Kerry continues to plumb new depths of idiocy. Did he learn nothing from when Murtha tried this in the House?

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin at June 15, 2006 4:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Now we have to wait and see if China will lend us enough money to stay in Iraq next year...

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy at June 15, 2006 04:15 PM
*************************************************
The Vietnam War took 12% of the GDP at the time and the Nation seemed to have survived, Iraq is taking somewhere between 1/2 to 1% of our GDP, China however is in serious financial shape and on the verge of a economic meltdown.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at June 15, 2006 5:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Murtha has back peddaled so far he is passing himself. The poltroon is *now* saying he wants us to win.
The rat SOB is too cowardly to stick to his guns....like any coward, he is actually afraid of guns.
What a disgusting transformation he has made over the last year.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at June 15, 2006 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

monkyboy,

Humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me is not, "fringe right". i am to the Right of them...waaaaaaaaaaaaay to 'Da *RIGHT* of them...so to speak.

If China's economy is in trouble, America's economy is bankrupt.

*SNICKER*

Yeah, right...as in, if the holder of your loans dies, then you still owe 'em. As in, i owed him/her "money", and will still pay even though he/she died.

*SNICKER*

Basically, North Korea and Iran are mere Prison Punks, and China is about to have to prove that China ain't just another Fat Butt young boy in a Prison...so to speak gently.

Personally, China is weak at home, and such weakness smells of a Punk waiting to fight or be pimped. They will roll over...simple as that.

Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at June 15, 2006 6:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

I linked from Kennedy: Vote Shows 93 Senators Out of Mainstream. Sci-Fi fan that I know you are, I kept waiting for "on the gripping hand," but finally realized that would require that Kerry be able to actually get a grip.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at June 15, 2006 7:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Easy Money...sounds like some Liberal's Anti-American dream, huh.

Well, life and money ain't that easy to come by, even if you are a Capitalist hating Communist like China, or even a Capitalist hating Anti-American American...so to speak.

China's approaching financial collapse is not new 'News'. Japan went through the same, as did Southeast Asia ("with dizzying speed in 1997"). China tried Communism, and failed. China is now trying a form of Capitalism under the control of Communism, and the problems that such suggests requires than individuals must be suppressed. The former Soviet Union carried China for decades, and such an expense caused Communism to collapse when pressured.

China has a population of like "1,313,973,713", and most of them are very poor. This same poor population sees Communist China now trying to use the techniques of Capitalism, and they wait for some 'trickledown' to start showing up, after decades of waiting.

When Socialist, Fascist, and Communist Governments like China and Iran and former Nazi Germany think that stifling individualism works, then they lose, and humans rebel against them. China is in more trouble than Islamism...so to speak.

China...fight or roll over...so to speak of what 'Man-Talk' is actually about.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at June 15, 2006 8:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

As for government pork spent of the "war" on terror, we've spend $2.5 trillion on "defense" over the last 5 years.

That's as much as we spent on World War II, even adjusting for inflation...and we have nothing to show for it but a few very rich neocons hucksters.

Hm... let's see what that works out to as a percent of GDP.

The GDP of the United States during World War II (1942 through 1945), translated into constant 2000 dollars, adds up to about $6.7 trillion.

War Department expenditures during WWII amounted to $193.5 billion in 1940 dollars, which is about $2.4 trillion in 2000 dollars.

Thus, during WWII, we spent about 35.8% of GDP on "defense."

The GDP during the four years of the Iraq War (2003 through 2006) adds up to $43.7 trillion in constant 2000 dollars; and we'll use your figure of $2.5 trillion, since you're unlikely to be underestimating <g>. Assuming 2004 dollars, we'll call that $2.3 trillion in 2000 dollars.

Therefore, during the Iraq War, we spent about 5.3% of GDP on "defense."

Hm... looks to me like we spent nearly seven times as much on defense during WWII, as a percent of our gross domestic product, as we have in the Iraq War.

And of course, we lost 200 times as many soldiers during WWII in raw numbers; in terms of population, we lost 35 soldiers per 10,000 population during WWII, and we have lost 0.085 per 10,000 population during the Iraq War.

Thus, the death rate of WWII as a percent of population was more than 411 times as great as during the Iraq War.

Any way you slice it, the Iraq War has been fairly inexpensive... both in blood and treasure.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 15, 2006 10:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Dafydd,

Having you debate Monkeyboy is like watching Carl Lewis enter the special Olympics. It is kinda funny to watch, but also kinda sad.

Monkeyboy - that is an analogy. And you are no Carl Lewis.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at June 16, 2006 10:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: Questions

I don't know what the percent behind the senator's name means. Could someone explain it?

John Kerry (MA, 100%);

Thanks!

The above hissed in response by: Questions at June 16, 2006 1:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Questions:

Glad to oblige. I thought that we needed to know more about senators and representatives than their parties and what state they're from, so I introduced this service.

The number in parentheses is the political rating of that congressman. For a Republican, the number is his rating by the American Conservative Union; for a Democrat, the number is his rating by Americans for Democratic Action.

In each case, those are the premier groups for defining, in general, how conservative or how liberal a politician is. Thus, John Kerry, with his 100% rating from the ADA, voted the way the ADA wanted on each vote of some defined set of votes in 2005. Jane Harman only voted with the ADA 70% of the time... thus, Kerry is much more liberal, by an objective measure, than Harman.

Similarly, Speaker Hastert, with his 100% rating from the ACU, is much more conservative than, say, Lincoln Chafee, who gets only a 40% from that same body.

So the quick answer is that the percentage is the degree of extremism to right or left: the percent after a Democrat's name is now liberal he is, and the percent after a Republican's name is now conservative he is.

Don't you wish everybody would start doing this?

In case you want to look folks up yourself, here are the URLS: