I am glad John Kerry lost the election

Don't get me wrong, I think John Kerry would have made a fine president, and I think Bush is horrible on many levels. But, in the long term scheme of things, it is worse for the Republicans that Bush won a second term. Here's why I think so, and it's all about Iraq.

Cross posted at Our forum

No matter who won the last presidential election, the situation in Iraq wasn't going to get any better. Maybe Kerry would have been able to internationalize the effort, he certainly would have had a better chance, but I doubt it. We bought it, and we own it. If I were the French, I'd LOL if the US president came to me for help after we renamed our french fries and pouring our beaujolais down the drain.

The fact is we have alienated many countries. Perhaps if we had rejected George Bush at the polls it would have helped us in the international community, but perhaps not. Now, with Iraq in the shitter, and no end in sight, Bush gets to wear that around his neck like a burning tire. With the Republicans as brand W, they wear it along with him.

If Kerry had won, the folks on the right in this country would blame him for the inevitable failure in Iraq. Twenty years from now they'd still be singing from that same playbook - Kerry lost Iraq. "The liberals wouldn't let us win it."

What we're witnessing now is the great Bush blowback. Bush gets the blame for the problems Bush created - instead of Kerry.

Today Republicans and conservatives are at each others throats. The script is no longer clear to them. They have no cohesive strategy for the mid terms, and there is no debth on their bench. The Democrats are in good shape - particularly if they opposed this war from the beginning, because their opposition is so clearly correct - opposing the war in Iraq was the best interest of America.

Democrats have a good chance of taking back the house or the senate, and with it the power to investigate. Finally we will have oversight, finally we can turn over some of the rocks and see what's been hiding underneath them, and it isn't going to be pretty. The manipulation and lies which led up to the war, the energy task force, the Abramoff bribes, the domestic spying - they will no longer be able to sweep these things under the rug with a compliant Republican congress.

In the long run, Democrats (and America) are better off that Kerry lost, because the blow back will be stronger and more long lasting. And they can't blame Kerry for Bush's mistakes.

•  who cares about the blame...

  it's the problems (that Bush has created) that are the issue.

  by Trix on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

  •  True

    Because now we are stuck with Scalito and John Roberts (and hopefully no more) Not to mention Bush's cronies that are happily plundering our environment. So yes it would have been rough for Kerry but much better for the country.

    by treehugger on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:30:33 PM PDT

  •  It's not just blame...

    It's about our future.

    I see the diarist's point. Had Kerry won, the Rs probably would have taken the White House right back in 2008(and probably would have kept the Senate and the House anyway) because people would have believed them when they heaped the blame for everything that went wrong on Kerry.  We would never have had an opportunity to fix all the things they broke. Things like universal health care (a great moral imperative in this country) would never have a chance in an environment that respects Republican philosophy.  They've run things into a ditch to such a point now that we have a chance to take the government back and begin the long road back to civilization.

    It's an unfortunate historic fact, and a recurring theme in our nation's history, that the Republicans periodically have to have the reins of government long enough for the public to gag them up.  

    That said, it's damned bitter medicine.  I agree with those who believe that every minute these monsters are in power is a tragedy for the earth.

    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:10:28 PM PDT

•  You make a really good point.

  Bush and the Republicans have done such a bad job using their own ideology. What better proof that their ideology is crap? But, all that said we still have to live in the toilet they created.

  by DrForbush on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:04:07 PM PDT

•  I felt that way the day after the election

  If Kerry had won (maybe he did, Ohio and all) the PNAC-er crowd wouldn't have had the failure of their policies exposed quite so forcefully.

  Besides, can you imagine how the MSM would have treated President Kerry?

  by Bill White on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:07:44 PM PDT

  •  Me too

    The day after the election (well, late in the day, at least) I decided it was best that Georgie would be made to clean up his own mess.  

    For once in his life.

    by ChiGirl88 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:31:18 PM PDT

•  well, if blame matters more than progress

  then yeah, its better Bush won.  Personally I'd rather not have NSA spying databases and things of that nature which probably wouldn't exist if we had President Kerry.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:11:09 PM PDT

•  The English Language Sucks

  I agree with you.

  But when I look at that title, and the dread I felt the day after the election, the word 'glad' does not come to mind.

  I had mentioned before that there were so many powers in this country that it would take Bush winning for people to realize what Washington has become. A Democratic win would not solve anything in the long run.

  The whole system is so corrupt, and it is so hard to find the people that are actually fighting for us, but are hampered by the system, vs. those that are pretending they are fighting for us, and using the system as an excuse.

  To me, Lieberman is just a start. They should all be on notice that the Democratic party cares about people. Business has money and enough politicians bought off to take care of themselves. Someone has to care for the 90% rest of us.

  by mickT on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:18:36 PM PDT

  •  You're right

    Maybe glad isn't the best word here.

    by avenueb on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:21:21 PM PDT

•  I'm not. n/t

  by kid oakland on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:18:41 PM PDT

•  My choice,

  No, Iraq was bound to go downhill and Kerry would have been blamed. So what. Even if we do take back congress and the presidency, you can bet the democrats will still get blamed, not for Iraq itself, but for the failure. Don't you know the only reason it is so bad now is we silly liberals haven't supported this president and the troops? It may not have been so great for the democrats, but it's been a disaster for this country that Kerry lost.

  by fritzrth on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:19:12 PM PDT

•  you might be right

  as far as Iraq is concerned, but the total record of the bush administration is so bad, it would have been far better to take our chances with John Kerry than put up with all the crap.  I mean, roberts, alito, nsa spying, patriot act 2, more tax cuts and commiserate deficits, lousy job creation, inequalities in all facets of our economic and social life and the list goes on and on.  

  Far better John Kerry than this idiotic bumbler and his cronies.

  by dougymi on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:20:49 PM PDT

•  If Kerry had won-

  there would most likely be far fewer dead people in New Orleans.

  by Arken on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:25:19 PM PDT

•  If you get in your car drunk...

  ...it would be good if you would get in a terrible accident and wipe out an SUV full of nuns and orphans. Because if someone took the keys from you we wouldn't learn the important lesson of your poor driving judgment.

  Somehow I don't think the Iraqi people, our soldiers, their families, or any of the millions of other people affected by this disaster of an administration would agree that being able to fix blame is the most important consideration.

  by Mad Dog Rackham on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:48:14 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    Bush's presidency is Iraq: he bet the house (our house) on it, and he is not turning back.  No matter how bad Iraq is or continues to be, he is going to "complete the mission" to ensure "democracy."  (Never mind that as Bush himself recently hinted, it will fall to the next president to fix this).

    Kerry, on the other hand, was not the architect of this policy. Because he did not start the war and would not have the burden of "saving face," he would've been much more likely to abandon or modify a policy that is not working.

    by turning blue on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:07:32 PM PDT

•  Suffering is NEVER Good.

  It's not just the war that is never ending.  He would have responded to Hurricane Katrina.  He would provide our troops with the correct equipment and body armor. He would have started an energy program so gas would have not gone up as much.  Most importantly he would protect the Constitution.  He would have investigated the corruption and crimes of the Bush Presidency.  These are just the beginning of the suffering that would have been avoided.

  by kaye on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:07:01 PM PDT

•  WOW!!! That is an amazing statement!

  btw. we are not done yet - still 2+ years left

  lots of stuff can happen - incl. another Supreme or two

  Kerry got my vote because he is a liberal/progressive despite his unfortunate Iraq vote

  four years make a huge difference in the life of a country

  it took Bill Clinton eight years to straighten out the twelve years of trickle-down economy and right-wing Republican rule

  by FelisRufus on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:26:17 PM PDT

•  You can't predict history

  Take the election of 1932.  The country's in the middle of the Great Depression.  Do you believe it would have been better for Hoover to have won in 1932?  Instead the nation elected FDR who completely changed the way Americans thought of government and established a Democratic majority for around 40 years.  

  For all we know, Kerry could have been the next FDR who would have been able to create a new progressive majority for the forseeable future.  You take your chances when you get them.  You don't wait for an unpredictable future (there is no guarantee Democrats win in 2008).

  by Double B on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:39:29 PM PDT

•  I Don't Know if I'd Use the Word Glad...

  There's an awful lot of dark cloud hanging over the US because of Bush and his merry band of incompetents. I sometimes find myself wondering if Kerry decided to concede even though he probably won because he realized just how messy and nasty the mess he'd be inheriting was and how it was a no-win for him or the Democrats for the reasons others have stated.

  I look back at the mess Bush has made of things and find myself wishing the Al Gore we see now would have been the Al Gore who ran in 2000. 9/11 may have still happened but I have no doubt our response to it would have been vastly different and we wouldn't be wasting lives and money trying to make Iraq the unofficial 51st state. The economy probably would have still taken a dip and New Orleans would have still flooded. Gore however wouldn't be "Johnny One-Note" proposing the same solution (tax breaks for the wealthy) for every problem. I think he would have hired the qualified people to run FEMA (not political cronies and people who raised the most in campaign funds for him) who would have responded swiftly, appropriately, and proactively, and he wouldn't have used fear for political gain.

  Under Bush, the terrorists have won. They accomplished their goal of instilling fear into our society, making us wary of our neighbors, and getting us to willingly give up cherished rights and freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. They baited Bush into squandering far to much in the way of people and treasure to fight them with the expenditure of very little of their resources. While I don't know for sure if the same thing would have happened under President Gore, but I like to think he and his administration would not have sacrificed our freedoms and squandered the future wealth of our children to enrich his friends.

  by Cali Techie on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:21:08 PM PDT

•  Either way, a Bonesman would have won

  by LibertySquirrel on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:32:55 PM PDT