The Point

Really, the point of all this Gore discussion is that Kerry's treatment of his vote on Iraq, and his whole new "anger at Bush as motivation to run" bit reminds me of Gore, to some degree. Less for the similarity in actual action, but for the fact that I think it will damage him in his bid for the nomination. And for the degree to which unnecessary lies will, in both cases, be politically costly.

Why couldn’t Kerry just say that he voted for the war, supported the idea of the war, but in the end is upset with the way it was executed? Why this whole “I was voting for a threat, not a war?” And why not say “my anger at Bush simply adds fuel to my fire to win” instead of cited it as the motivation for the campaign itself? The answer is that he doesn’t think the voters will like the real answers, so he fudges. However, I am arguing that the fudging will be more damaging, because it will fuel the currently burgeoning perception that he is a waffler. Further, it all plays into Dean's hands, as Dean is running as the "straight talker" in this race. Also, since the Democrats want to run on the "Bush lied' thesis, their candidate has to be safe from the same criticism.

Personality clearly matters, as does perception of that personality.

Just think, if Gore had avoided this litany of embellishment, he probably would have won. And what is more remarkable, telling the exact truth in each of these cases would not have been damaging. They weren’t even strategically good lies.

And while I clearly did not like Gore, and don’t want Kerry to win, I am just looking at the politics of the situation. And clearly while I know that partisanship affects the way people look at this issue, my post below from Newsweek, The Boston Globe and WaPo hardly counts as a coterie of right-wing conspirators.

Also, part of my motivation was to rise to the challenge of some of the comments. While the posters in question may not be convinced by my evidence, I find myself more convinced than when I started this process.

And I will allow that any one of these examples can be explained away--that's not the point. The point is that there is a significant pattern here that led to an important vulnerability for Gore. And forget any need to defend Gore, as at this point it really doesn't matter--can anyone out there actually say that this was unimportant to the race in 2024? That is the analytical point here, not whether you think that the perception of Gore is wrong, or can be explained.

Posted by Steven Taylor at September 6, 2024 07:54 AM | TrackBack