(The opinions expressed in this post are, of course, my own, but you know that by now. They do not represent the opinions of UNO College Democrats or the Nebraska Young Democrats. I’ve always tried to call it like I see it, so here it is. - Dave).
News from the weekend (I’m still catching up), Joe Jordan’s blog suggests that Kerrey’s polling looked very good, beating every potential Republican candidate (h/t Leavenworth Street). But despite this good news, and perhaps some indication that he’s considering a run, I’m still wary of what it would mean for Bob Kerrey to become the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.
I made a couple of comments when Bob Kerrey first expressed interest in running for Senate that suggested I’d be cold to a Senate run. I like Kerrey, I think he’s done a lot of good things for Nebraska, but there’s two significant factors that worry me.
First, Kerrey has lived in New York for the past six years. He briefly considered running for mayor of New York City. Now, it’d be incredibly difficult to tar Bob Kerrey, a three-time winner of statewide elections in Nebraska, as a “carpetbagger,” but a similar situation forced John Breaux, a Democratic institution in Louisiana, out of the race for that state’s governorship.
But second, and most importantly, Kerrey is dead wrong on Iraq. I say this with all respect to the good Senator, and he has been a tremendous supporter of our group’s efforts with Tribute To The Fallen, but there it is. He fails to recognize that this war was a colossal, catastrophic mistake. A failure of epic proportions matched only by the incompetence of its execution. Today, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Kerrey again demonstrates how wrong he is.
Using a series of strawman arguments and hypothetical fantasies, Kerrey claims that Iraq was a grave threat to our national security before the invasion - despite the clear absence of weapons of mass destruction, or any links to al-Qaeda. The most choice strawman argument among them?
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
This was carnage of our own creation. And the same reasons why I support getting the hell out right now are the reasons why any military intervention under that unlikely scenario would not only be unfeasible, but wrong. Because it is clear that our soldiers would become targets by both sides - just as they are now. It’s also clear that the Shiites and Kurds had no way of overthrowing the Hussein government without our intervention. The U.S. military created the power vacuum that allowed the current situation to arise. The Sunni were largely shut out of government operations because of the de-Baathification policy. The Shiite majority was subjugated for years under Saddam’s rule. The result is the seeds of civil war against the backdrop of a centuries-old sectarian conflict. You cannot take sides in this civil war, particularly when both sides think it’s perfectly okay to blow your people up.
But at a time when even Ben Nelson recognizes the American people’s need to bring this war to a conclusion, Kerrey is still standing with Joe Lieberman and the vast majority of Republicans on the issue of Iraq. That concerns me greatly. I’ll readily admit I wasn’t the biggest fan of Nelson, but he was the best choice on the ballot last year. The same would be true for Kerrey in 2008 if he is the nominee - he’s better than the other guy, whomever the other guy ends up being.
But if we’re to move things forward, if we’re ever going to bust out of this rut in Nebraska, we need to demonstrate clearly and forcefully exactly the difference between our two parties. And right now, the clearest line is drawn in Iraq. Almost all Republicans are for the war. Almost all Democrats are against the war. And it’s difficult to imagine any scenario which shows the American people changing their position on the central issue of our time.
This is my strong reservation about a Kerrey candidacy: it positions us, as a state party, on the wrong side of the most important issue in 2008.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and perhaps Iraq will be irrelevant in this race. But based on where the Republican primary is going, I think that’s highly unlikely. Iraq will dominate the debate in this race, in every federal race in 2008.
Let’s put it this way: Bob Kerrey’s taking a position that is out of step with the majority of people in Nebraska. That number’s only going to grow over the next year and a half. Being anti-war is not a bad thing in Nebraska. We want out just as much as everyone else.
Make no mistake about my partisan loyalties: I’d vote for Kerrey in a general election, even in the unlikely event that he faced Chuck Hagel. But I’m not wild about supporting a candidate for Senate whose position on a major issue appeals more to the radical right-wing elements in the Republican Party than anyone in his own party. (See Also: Ben Nelson and immigration).
That’s my two cents for the evening. I’ll be getting back to examining the Republicans’ every move soon.