|
First of all, there's nothing here really about the candidate proving that they can deliver the goods. Even if a candidate conforms perfectly to an ideological litmus test, voters need to know they can turn their ideas into reality - - and how that reality compares to the original idea.
Regarding #1: This is impractical if not impossible. The whole point of the Republican smear machine is it can manufacture a controversial past out of thin air. They spin a candidate's strengths as liabilities and they take a microscope to a candidate's record and public statements and pull anything that can sounds weird or suspicious out of context and use it (sans context) prove that the candidate is a liar and/or crazy and/or incompetent and/or a craven political hack who can't be trusted. Any candidate is vulnerable to this form of attack unless we reform the media.
Even if there was no Republican smear machine, how exactly are we supposed to be 100% sure we know whether a candidate has skeletons in their closet or not? Candidates don't go around saying, "Hi, I'm Senator Goodhair, and I'm having an affair with my crack dealer, who's a 13 year old illegal immigrant from Honduras. My votes sell for a minimum of $100,000 a piece. Did I mention I haven't stopped beating my wife?" Especially here at DU, it's very difficult to learn anything about the weaknesses of potential Dem candidates - - if somebody posts "It says on OpenSecrets.org that Senator Goodhair is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from Satan, what's up with that?", they will receive a long string of apologies ("Satan supports the separation of church and state!") and abuse ("Only a Freeper would repeat that smear here!! Just because it's a matter of public record is no reason to believe it's true!!!"). Similarly, smears from past or current campaigns about Senator Goodhair will be routinely posted as the truth, without the poster bothering to verify the veracity of their claim. And trivia - - especially if it is the CW of the MSM - - is floated as vitally important fact: "Senator Goodhair can't win, because his middle name is Glockenspiel. There's never been a President whose middle name was a musical instrument before, so one can never win."
Regarding #2: Granted, retraction is better than stubbornly insisting that we should "stay the course", but voting for the IRW in the first place shows that the person either 1.) does not have the ability to tell the difference between a necessary, planned military action and the worst strategic mistake in American history or 2.) can tell the difference but is willing to vote for the worst strategic mistake in American history to gain political popularity or 3.) can tell the difference but is willing to vote for the worst strategic mistake in American history because they're afraid of the right wing smear machine.
Additionally, accepting a candidate who voted for the IWR but recanted concedes a great deal of turf to the Republicans. To an independent voter, what's the difference between a Democrat who voted for the IRW but recanted and a Republican who voted for the IRW then recanted? Very little, but what little there is, isn't good - - it seems more reasonable that a Republican would blindly follow President Bush.
If the Republicans nominate somebody like McCain or Hagel and our nominee is somebody who was also in Congress and voted for the IRW resolution, the national security part of the election quickly moves on from Iraq (because neither side will want to dwell on the fact that they voted for such a disaster) to the more general question of "who has more foreign policy/national defense/anti-terrorism experience"? Unless your candidate (who voted for the IRW but later recanted) has the strongest foreign policy/national defense/anti-terrorism experience in Congress, you've just compromised your principles for nothing.
Also, you risk the Republicans nominating somebody like Guiliani or Romney who did not vote for the war, who can then use the Dem's IRW vote as proof that the Democrat isn't Presidential material.
Regarding #3: There's no internal logic in this list. How can it demand a candidate have the courage of conviction if it also demand that they have recanted their IRW vote? Shouldn't the courage of conviction demand they stick to their original vote?
That to one side, how on earth are folks supposed to tell what is the actual courage of conviction and what is spin? What if the things that the candidate has the courage of conviction about are so popular they are never tested in any meaningful way during their time in office? On any given vote or statment or action, you will read here at DU and in the MSM both that it proves the candidate is a paragon of virtue and that it proves the candidate is a craven political hack. Where is the completely unbiased source where we can research this? Where is the moral equivalent to OpenSecrets.org?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
