Interesting analysis of the comparison of Romney to Kerry

[karynnj]

2. I had the same frustration with "surprisingly"

I saw Howard Dean on MSNBC yesterday and he used the same excuse for his loss - that people decided that JK was more "electable". That ignores that he got just 18% of the caucus goers and the first term Senator Edwards beat him badly as well. In his case, I understand the temptation to make the problem not about his own campaign or his own qualities.

Kerry's vote was a problem, but I wonder if he had not had treatment for cancer if it a Kerry appearance at the DNC convention where Dean gave his anti-war speech could have prevented him being framed as "prowar" by Trippi. Imagine the Georgetown speech - "Don't rush to war" adapted to be given before a partisan crowd. At that point, Kerry was labeled antiwar by the media. If he had not lost that critical month or two (February and March 2003), Dean might still have been the antiwar candidate for those wanting an angry leader, but I think Kerry might not have had to explain his position as often as he did - and did successfully enough that he won more of the people saying they were antiwar than Dean in Iowa.

The Dean campaign lumped everyone who voted for the IWR into prowar - and called Dean the only anti-war candidate (ignoring Kuchinich). It was fair for Dean to use the vote, but he was actually rather dishonest in how he did so. Dean's team ignored that Dean himself spoke in favor of the Biden/Lugar amendment that JK preferred as well and they ignored that in fall of 2002, Dean actually sounded MORE aggressive than JK and others in the Senate in his own view of what resolution should be passed. He also ignored that Kerry had spoken about trying to avoid war. Dean et al, for political gain, intentionally conflated an October vote - which he likely would have voted for had he been a Senator - with a March decision to go to war - something that has greatly benefited Bush and his allies.

Here is what Dean said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.

HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879

I remembered the Face the Nation show, but had a VERY hard time finding a link. There are many Dean sites that had links to many Dean appearances, but they eliminated all fall 2002 appearances. This resolution would have been WORSE than the IWR resolution was - stating up front that we were willing to attack unilaterally. My guess is that had this been brought up, it would have been explained away as speaking just of the case where the inspectors were not allowed in - but it is definitely neither diplomatic or anti-war. I don't hesitate to guess Kerry would have voted against it as unnecessarily provocative.

I agree with you, that we will have to put up with the comparisons to 2004 - at least through the primaries. I suspect that if Romney is the candidate, the parallels fade fast. I doubt Romney will get the treatment that the media gave Kerry - not bothering to help introduce him and allowing a character assassination. In addition, in Iowa, it is Romney whose has millions spent in his behalf attacking his opponents. A far cry from 2004.