Kerry's positions too complex for most voters?

[Lord MJ]

It seems that in addition to Kerry being a "flip-flopper" and constantly changing his positions, It seems that many of his positions were ebodiments of flip-flops and attempts to pander to both sides of the issue, something the American people will not tolerate.

I oppose Gay marriage, but I support Civil Unions

Which looks to the average person as an obvious attempt to pander to voth sides of the issue instead of picking one position. You're trying to appease both sides of the crowd which you simply cannot do when you're already considered a flip-flopper.

I oppose abortion but I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion

Something that doesn't make sense even to pro-choicers. I once had an argument with a pro-choicer when I stated that:

If a woman is a victim of rape she has a moral obligation to the life within her, but she should have the legal right to an abortion if she chooses to.

The person I was talking to acted like I was speaking Chinese. I got heat from her, not because she disagreed with my position, but because in her mind it was not logically consistent.

How can you say something is wrong, but support it being legal? The question the majority of people would ask.

My faith guides my life, but it wont dictate my policies

The mainstream would ask, "How can you claim to be a man of faith, yet then turn around and say it won't influence your policies? Your just going to turn it on and off?"


It's sad that the majority of people are so stupid that they can't comprehend these "complex" arguments and positions. They see it as flip flopping simply because they are too stupid and braindead to comprehend any thing that isn't "yes or no".

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is why the "flip-flopping" tactic the RNC used as ammo against Kerry worked. You can't try and appease both sides without looking like an indecisive nitwit. You're either fully for one side, or the other, there is no real middle-ground in US politics in my mind. So Kerry, despite trying his best not to come off as a rabid liberal, didn't succeed in winning people over with his pick 'n' mix policies.

[theski]

This is why the "flip-flopping" tactic the RNC used as ammo against Kerry worked. You can't try and appease both sides without looking like an indecisive nitwit. You're either fully for one side, or the other, there is no real middle-ground in US politics in my mind. So Kerry, despite trying his best not to come off as a rabid liberal, didn't succeed in winning people over with his pick 'n' mix policies.

Well said.

[Elfdart]

Nothing like words with more than two sylables to turn off Red America. And if you really want to piss off the Cracker Belt, reconcile your personal views with your views of government policy: "I am against abortion, but it's not for the state to decide." The cud-chewers aren't known for their ability to think, and they believe that (like the Taliban) personal religious views should be the basis for government policy.

Kerry was screwed because there are enough sub-human fundies in this country who would rather watch their own family members die than allow gays to marry or stem cell research or women to practice birth control or get abortions. The fact that a scumbag from Oklahoma won a Senate seat after calling for the killing of doctors who perform abortions and women who get them tells me something that should be apparent: Blaming Kerry or his staff or the other candidates or the college kids or whatever misses the point. There is absolutely NOTHING Kerry, Edwards or anyone else could have done to persuade these fanatical, bigoted fucks to vote for them. Period. Nick Berg had a better chance of pleading his case with his kidnappers before they sawed off his head!

A majority of people in this country are assholes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

[General Zod]

it's not so much that kerry's positions were too complicated as it is the vast majority of american voters are complete morons.

[Joe]

This is why the "flip-flopping" tactic the RNC used as ammo against Kerry worked. You can't try and appease both sides without looking like an indecisive nitwit. You're either fully for one side, or the other, there is no real middle-ground in US politics in my mind.

Of course there is a middle-ground in US politics - Bill Clinton got elected there twice. It's possible to pick positions on the issues, stick with them, and still occupy the middle ground.

[Durandal]

II oppose Gay marriage, but I support Civil Unions

Which looks to the average person as an obvious attempt to pander to voth sides of the issue instead of picking one position. You're trying to appease both sides of the crowd which you simply cannot do when you're already considered a flip-flopper.

In all fairness, unlike your other two examples, this is a half-assed attempt to play to both sides. Marriage is a civil union, and both Bush and Kerry were both just playing ridiculous semantics games to try and appease homophobic bigots (by enforcing the notion that Christianity has some sort of copyright on the word "marriage") and by giving gay people the right to see their partner in the hospital.

[Loner]

it's not so much that kerry's positions were too complicated as it is the vast majority of american voters are complete morons.

I concur.

[Bugsby]

This is why the "flip-flopping" tactic the RNC used as ammo against Kerry worked. You can't try and appease both sides without looking like an indecisive nitwit. You're either fully for one side, or the other, there is no real middle-ground in US politics in my mind. So Kerry, despite trying his best not to come off as a rabid liberal, didn't succeed in winning people over with his pick 'n' mix policies.

WRONG. You're NOT either fully on one side or the other. These days, policy has been tending towards extremes. Kerry had the insight to say that neither extreme is correct and the answer lies somewhere in the middle.... which in most cases, it DOES. But because Kerry broke with convention and didn't side with either set of extremists, all of a sudden he is painted as some wishy-washy no-stance politician. BS. Just because his stance doesn't fit neatly into your view of what his stance should or should not be, that doesn't mean that he has no stance. That means it is incumbent upon every voter to find out what that stance is before voting: not just say "I don't get it" and vote Bush. That's why Kerry lost. You guys are right, the marriage/civil unions thing was just pnadering, but his stances on religion and abortion were subtle and informed, and to me were the best parts of his campaign. Too bad the Bushites never bothered to figure out what he was saying.

[Admiral Valdemar]

WRONG. You're NOT either fully on one side or the other. These days, policy has been tending towards extremes. Kerry had the insight to say that neither extreme is correct and the answer lies somewhere in the middle.... which in most cases, it DOES. But because Kerry broke with convention and didn't side with either set of extremists, all of a sudden he is painted as some wishy-washy no-stance politician. BS. Just because his stance doesn't fit neatly into your view of what his stance should or should not be, that doesn't mean that he has no stance. That means it is incumbent upon every voter to find out what that stance is before voting: not just say "I don't get it" and vote Bush. That's why Kerry lost. You guys are right, the marriage/civil unions thing was just pnadering, but his stances on religion and abortion were subtle and informed, and to me were the best parts of his campaign. Too bad the Bushites never bothered to figure out what he was saying.

Which is why he lost. Because he wasn't going for a plain ol' liberal or conservative stance. He was trying to get a good blend of views but this confused the average voter and made Kerry look like he was really incapable of deciding what he was standing for.

I can't help it if the US voting public couldn't get this. I would be perfectly happy to see Kerry win a Clinton like election with the same base, but it wasn't to be.

[Stormbringer]

This is why the "flip-flopping" tactic the RNC used as ammo against Kerry worked. You can't try and appease both sides without looking like an indecisive nitwit.

The real problem was that so far as the evidence goes Kerry is an indecisive nitwit. He really did do his best to take both sides of every issues. Kerry's lack of solidly defined positions was a big problem. He didn't have to be a partisan robot, black or white, but he did have to pick a position and stick with it.

You're either fully for one side, or the other, there is no real middle-ground in US politics in my mind. So Kerry, despite trying his best not to come off as a rabid liberal, didn't succeed in winning people over with his pick 'n' mix policies.

Yeah, there are a hell of a lot of policies where you have to be either or. That's not a bad thing necessarily; you do have to be either secular or sectarian after all. Kerry's awkward attempt to strandle both sides of an issue just didn't work.

[Darth Wong]

Which is why he lost. Because he wasn't going for a plain ol' liberal or conservative stance. He was trying to get a good blend of views but this confused the average voter and made Kerry look like he was really incapable of deciding what he was standing for.

I wonder if he should have just tackled the "flip-flop" thing head-on by pointing out what an divisive black-and-white mentality it represents (complete with a lot of Founding Father rhetoric about unity and "a house divided against itself cannot stand"), instead of simply denying the charge, which just makes him look defensive. The point is to attack the use of the word "flip-flop" early and often, mock it at every turn, accuse Republicans of it at every conceivable opportunity, and thus marginalize it. But instead, they let it become a pervasive impression in the public, at which point it was too late to do anything about it.

In general, he just needed the kind of rapid-response talking-point dissemination teams which the Republicans had. The Republicans ran their campaign exactly like a corporate advertising campaign (notice the heavy emphasis on Pavlovian association and conditioning techniques), while the Democrats ran their campaign like a debate, trying to refute points made by the other side. That may work well for some people, but Middle America does not respond to points. It responds to psychological conditioning techniques.

[Stormbringer]

Kerry's big problem was his positions were fifteen minute orations filled with multiple hegded bets and ass covering, call it complicated if you want, everyone else calls it confusing (or just weasely).

He spent so much time covering his ass on every position that he just convinced people he had no position. It's perfectly permissible to have more than a yes or no position on an issues. But people won't respond to ponderious ass-covering positions, especially not for a leadership position.

[Darth Wong]

Kerry's big problem was his positions were fifteen minute orations filled with multiple hegded bets and ass covering, call it complicated if you want, everyone else calls it confusing (or just weasely).

He spent so much time covering his ass on every position that he just convinced people he had no position. It's perfectly permissible to have more than a yes or no position on an issues. But people won't respond to ponderious ass-covering positions, especially not for a leadership position.

That's where his skills as a communicator come into question. I am absolutely certain that Reagan or Clinton could have taken Kerry's exact position on all of these issues and found a way to sell them to the public.

[Master of Ossus]

That's where his skills as a communicator come into question. I am absolutely certain that Reagan or Clinton could have taken Kerry's exact position on all of these issues and found a way to sell them to the public.

I tend to agree. I don't think Kerry's ideas were too complex so much as I think he was unable to communicate them in a way that voters could understand. It's one thing to just be a moderate, or a centrist (as Clinton, for instance, was). The positions that centrists occupy may be somewhat difficult to explain, but a really good politician is able to do it. Kerry's inability to explain his actions, though, and his muddled and vague responses to questioning, revealed an inability to formulate clear and convincing arguments for the general public. I think it cost him the election.

[Stormbringer]

Kerry's big problem was his positions were fifteen minute orations filled with multiple hegded bets and ass covering, call it complicated if you want, everyone else calls it confusing (or just weasely).

He spent so much time covering his ass on every position that he just convinced people he had no position. It's perfectly permissible to have more than a yes or no position on an issues. But people won't respond to ponderious ass-covering positions, especially not for a leadership position.

That's where his skills as a communicator come into question. I am absolutely certain that Reagan or Clinton could have taken Kerry's exact position on all of these issues and found a way to sell them to the public.

There's no question that a good communicator can convey a nuinanced message well. And Reagan and Clinton were both masters at giving just the right explanation. They could definitely pull of a more nuianced position. Kerry couldn't.

And let's face it, a good deal what he did was simply calculated ass covering which never plays well.

[J]

That's where his skills as a communicator come into question. I am absolutely certain that Reagan or Clinton could have taken Kerry's exact position on all of these issues and found a way to sell them to the public.

Very true, Kerry blathered on and on and used 1000 big important sounding words when 10 simple ones would do. People just don't have the attention span for that, so they tune it out and wait for the soundbite version on Fox or Cnn, and as we know, those are hardly accurate. Listening to Kerry speak is about as entertaining as a three hour Economics lecture, worse even, because there's no fancy graphs on the overhead to look at.

[Slartibartfast]

From at least those two examples, I can definitely see a golden mean fallacy. There is no middle ground in the "gay marriage" or "abortion" issues. You don't half-kill a fetus or make arbitrary choices about when to allow it, and you don't kinda allow gays to marry but not really.

What Kerry effectively did was alienate both sides. To pro-choicers, they sound like "I'm allowing you to get an abortion but I still think you're fucked up and immoral if you do". To anti-abortionists, he's saying "I think like you, but I don't think we should shove our beliefs into other people's throats" when the anti-abortion stance relies almost completely on the *shoving* part. (hint: they aren't exactly asking the government to take that right just from them. they're already not doing it, they just don't want *others* to have that right.).

[Aeolus]

From at least those two examples, I can definitely see a golden mean fallacy. There is no middle ground in the "gay marriage" or "abortion" issues. You don't half-kill a fetus or make arbitrary choices about when to allow it, and you don't kinda allow gays to marry but not really.

What Kerry effectively did was alienate both sides. To pro-choicers, they sound like "I'm allowing you to get an abortion but I still think you're fucked up and immoral if you do". To anti-abortionists, he's saying "I think like you, but I don't think we should shove our beliefs into other people's throats" when the anti-abortion stance relies almost completely on the *shoving* part. (hint: they aren't exactly asking the government to take that right just from them. they're already not doing it, they just don't want *others* to have that right.).

Yes, but Clinton or Regan could have sidestepped the issue. And then been complemented on dancing such a skilled sidestep. Neither Kerry nor Bush has a 10th of the oratorical skill

[Master of Ossus]

What Kerry effectively did was alienate both sides.

I don't think Kerry alienated both sides. He had a huge fraction of the Democratic vote. What he didn't do well was convince people who would otherwise be for Bush to switch sides. He didn't have cross-over appeal, and he allowed Bush to take too much of the middle. He didn't convince anyone that he was a good candidate. The best he did was convince others that Bush sucked--the much easier of the tasks put before him.

[Slartibartfast]

Sidestep, as in totally ignore the points? Sure they can. But Kerry didn't, he actually pissed off both.

Still, fucking hard to believe that people consider being an indecisive douchebag worse than a guy completely bent on fucking up everything.

[Durandal]

You don't half-kill a fetus or make arbitrary choices about when to allow it, and you don't kinda allow gays to marry but not really.

Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but why can't you define a point past which not to allow abortions? During the development cycle of an embryo to a fetus to birth, what's inside the mother will eventually become a human at one point. Sure, we can't exactly discern that point, but we can approximate it.

Before the ban on partial-birth abortions (which I supported), that arbitrary point was when the head had exited the birth canal. Naturally, that made absolutely no sense. There is no physical difference between a fetus inside the womb just before it comes out and just after it comes out. That's why I'd support a second-trimester cut-off. After the second trimester, the fetus' brain exhibits higher-order functions similar to that of a human in a dream-like state.

[Slartibartfast]

Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but why can't you define a point past which not to allow abortions? During the development cycle of an embryo to a fetus to birth, what's inside the mother will eventually become a human at one point. Sure, we can't exactly discern that point, but we can approximate it.

Before the ban on partial-birth abortions (which I supported), that arbitrary point was when the head had exited the birth canal. Naturally, that made absolutely no sense. There is no physical difference between a fetus inside the womb just before it comes out and just after it comes out. That's why I'd support a second-trimester cut-off. After the second trimester, the fetus' brain exhibits higher-order functions similar to that of a human in a dream-like state.

Well, that is more or less what the pro-choice want, define some point other than "as soon as the sperm enters the ovary", preferably while the thing is forming but doesn't have a working brain yet. So it wouldn't really be "middle ground". They want to be able to have an abortion *at all*, preferably after the symptoms are obvious.

Maybe I just worded it poorly, I don't know, I just meant there's no middle ground, when one side wants to be able to get an abortion at some point, and the other wants them not to be able to get the abortion at all.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know how could I fuck the quote like that

[Glocksman]

What Kerry effectively did was alienate both sides.

I don't think Kerry alienated both sides. He had a huge fraction of the Democratic vote. What he didn't do well was convince people who would otherwise be for Bush to switch sides. He didn't have cross-over appeal, and he allowed Bush to take too much of the middle. He didn't convince anyone that he was a good candidate. The best he did was convince others that Bush sucked--the much easier of the tasks put before him.

Kerry couldn't convince this alienated conservative leaning gun owner to vote for him and I was hoping the Democrats would put up a decent alternative to GWB as I don't really like him and didn't support him 4 years ago.

Instead, we got Kerry and I wound up voting Libertarian again.