The American Electorate Does Not Reward Apologizers

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Candidates and supporters who believe we can win the presidency on a wave of apologies should learn the lessons of history.

Cross-posted at MyDD.

NEW YORK - Democrat

John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of

Iraq was a mistake . . .

"If you asked me what I think the most important personal characteristics of the next president are, I would say honesty, openness and decency," he said. "There's not a single voter in America who doesn't understand that their president is human, and their president will sometimes makes mistakes." Yahoo.News

In the September 30, 2004 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, the word "mistake" arose 13 times in the context of Iraq, offering Bush ample opportunity to admit that he had made at least one mistake.  Kerry admitted to having made significant mistakes while George Bush admitted to none.

BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but . . . it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.

html

Apparently, much of the public believed Kerry's mistake was worse - admitting a mistake, changing his story, and becoming a "flip-flopper" - because Bush went on to win the election.  

The New York Times said,

Until sometime early in the summer, President Bush and his advisers sporadically wrestled with a fundamental choice: Was it smarter to go into the final months of the election campaign confessing to considerable error in decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in early calculations about how best to occupy the country? Or would the president - "not a man given to backward-looking introspection," as one close aide put it - be better off conceding only the smallest errors of judgment, and focusing the electorate on the hope of a bright future for Iraq and the whole Middle East?

Mr. Bush chose the second option. To choose otherwise, one of Mr. Bush's advisers said the other day, would be "to give John Kerry the opening he was waiting for."

But now, in the final 23 days of the campaign, that decision has come to look far riskier than it did in the flush of handing Iraq back to Iraqis. Win or lose, when the history of the 2004 Bush campaign is written, it may turn out that the bet about how to talk about the war will prove pivotal. Mr. Bush held his bet through the presidential debate Friday, declining a questioner's invitation to describe any mistake he had made. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/weekin

review/10sang.html?ex=1172725200&en=

ac83b971d8fdeb28&ei=5070  

But, at the time the talking heads and many Democrats ridiculed Bush for his unwillingness to admit having made mistakes.  From CNN:

BORGER:  . . . [O]ne of the most interesting things to me, Howie, was sort of the question that the president was asked about, can you ever remember a mistake you made? And this time, unlike the last time he was asked that...

KURTZ: When he was at a press conference.

BORGER: When he was at a press conference, he was a little bit more prepared. And he said, well, if what you mean is did I make a mistake in going into Iraq, the answer is no. Yes, I made a couple of mistakes on presidential appointments, but I'm not going to talk about those now.

And what you see is the Kerry campaign saying, this is a stubborn person who will never admit that he has made a mistake. And that is something they are talking about. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0

410/10/rs.01.html

Still, Bush's strategy won the day:  "Better to be perceived as wrong and resolute than to be perceived as an irresolute flip-flopper in a time of war."

And still John Edwards continues today on his National Apology Tour, with the anti-war Left encouraging him and demanding that other candidates joint the John Edwards Lollapalooza Apology Tour.  Other candidates refuse to join Edwards either because the have nothing to apologize for or because they don't believe the Apology Tour is the best way to win the Presidency and end the war.  After the Kerry/Bush rout, can you blame them?  Are we Democrats trying to win an election or win a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for most apologies on a single issue?

One of the most famous American apologies was Jimmy Carter's 1976 admission that, as concerned adultery, he had "sinned in his heart".  

PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: In an interview published in the November 1976 issue of Playboy magazine, then-Governor Carter talked about the role of religion in his life. In one part he said:

"I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I'm going to do it anyhow, because I'm human and I'm tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'

"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/gl

ossaries/carter.html



As obvious as the admission seemed, since most of us have sinned in our hearts and do so daily in one way or another, still Jimmy Carter's admission became a scandal and the focus of national derision until his presidency ended abruptly after one term, with the election of the less apologetic Ronald Reagan.  It's not that Democrats can't win the Presidency, but just that apologizing isn't historically an effective way of doing so.

With Hillary Clinton at 43% in the polls and John Edwards at 17%, the public seems already to be punishing Edwards for his apologies.

Candidates and supporters who believe we can win the presidency on a wave of apologies should learn the lessons of history.  As valid as apologies may be factually, the election usually goes to the candidate who apologizes the least.


francislholland's picture

| | | | | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mole333's picture

Well

Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which hadn't really been his baby. Didn't do him any harm. LBJ made no admissions of fault or apology for the escalation of Iraq...sorry, Vietnam, and he was despised. Carter really didn't have many problems because of that interview. I think the hostage situation and the failed rescue attempt (for which he did take responsibility a la Kennedy) and the continued stagflation from Nixon and Ford's terms are what did it.

I think you are right that there are dangers in apologizing. But I think the American people want to hear from their electeds that they feel duped, they were wrong and they are pissed because Bush fooled them the same way he fooled the American people and the time has come to set things right.

Hillary has been an apologist for Bush's Iraq quagmire for so long I think she really owes those of us she is supposed to be supporting (that's me...my vote went to electing her in the first place) some explanation and apology for her being an Iraq war apologist.


Michael Bouldin's picture

More right-wing talking points from HillaryBot Holland

This must be how you win a ***Democratic*** primary: disparage the "anti-war left" (quick topical aside: if the anti-war crowd is "the left", everybody can go home, because at 67% of Americans, we've won the political battle forever) and praise George Bush.

BTW, Bill Clinton made the apology an art form re: Monica Lewinsky. Worked for him at the time, is all I will say. The man grovelled to anyone who didn't run away quickly enough. He even called ministers - Jesse Jackson among them, I seem to recall - to the White House for some forgiveness/apology/PR sessions (photographers included, har).

Oh, but Queen Hillary doesn't want all that unpleasantness mentioned, I hear. This because she and her HillaryBots can tell all of us what to talk about.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 2091 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify