Question about the influx of pro-Kerry Posters on DU

[Vis Numar]

Is it just me, or has there within the last week been a influx of people posting Kerry kerry Kerry here on DU, like their job depends on it? I'm not talking about BLM or Nicholas, but the many other pro-Kerry posters that have less than 30 posts... Most of them seem respectful, I'm not complaining or anything, just an observance.

So what's up? Has there been a directive from Kerrys campaign for the staffers across the states that they are involved in, to post here on DU? Spread Kerry-word across the chat rooms? Anyone want to spill the beans?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Get used to it.

This is the way of the Internet World: Astroturf.

[Bombtrack]

3. Although Kerry has dropped from my 2nd to 3rd choice recently,

I'd still rather here from them more often than the army of like-minded Deancinich posters.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Deancinich lol

Actually I prefer Kerry to Dean, I like the guy and without the war vote, he'd be for sure number 2. Kerry is a very good guy on many of the issues, the fact that one of my heroes, Teddy Kennedy decided to endorse him makes me think he aint all bad and the fact hes my political mentor's pick also helps and she opposed the war. Deancinich lol thats funny and I am a Kucinich supporter but I think while most Kucinich supporters like me liked Dean for his opposition to the war, I think we would prefer Kerry to Dean. Maybe I speak for myself but I find myself more willing to support John Kerry than Howard Dean.

[Bombtrack]

17. Kennedy had some pressure to support him

based on the fact that they are from the same state etc. If Kennedy endorsed someone else such as Edwards, as it was rumored he wanted more, it would have been portrayed as a betrayel in the media.

I don't know the the war decision would overshadow electablity to people here. It's one thing if we hadn't gone in yet, but it has already happened, and a candidate who was for or against it can't reverse it. But a thing that can be changed is another term for Bush, yet he will receive that term if any of the anti-war candidates are nominated, and it's a much better than 50-50 chance for Bush if Kerry(who clearly keeps people guessing as to a position either way) in nominated.

It's very much a Nader-voter mentality. All the exciting of the base in the world isn't going to make the independants dissapear.

[blm]

20. Hogwash...

Kennedy was always going to support Kerry. Kerry has campaigned for Kennedys since he was a teenager. What you heard was just a rumor that went around that had no basis in reality.

[knight_of_the_star]

34. No he didn't

In a interview with Time he was asked about his thoughts on Kerry and he said he was with him all the way, thinks he's the one who can beat Bush out of office.

[XanaDUer]

18. Kerry's vote on Iraq...

was firmly a vote to oppose Bush's actions, and not a vote on the war.

The way the division of War Powers works in COngress is that the PResident has full power to wage war under all and any circumstances, in which he believes there is some threat to our nation, to its national security, its citizens within and without the US, and dangers to American interests and allies.

In order for Congress to give its support to the President in any actions he may take, is actually to do nothing. They do not have to pass an act of Congress, or even declare war. If they do not act, the President is free to continue on whatever path he chooses. If COngress wants to somehow limit that power, and if the Prez indicates he would rather have their support, then Congress can effectively try to limit the Prez's actions by writing and passing an act in which they tell the Prez things they would like to see him do before engaging in the use of force.

The prez can decide to complete all of those things, and THEN Congress will issue a second document stating that the Pres has attempted *all reasonable, diplomatic, and peaceful means* to resolve the issue. If the Pres has done what they asked him to do, they will them issue either a declaration of war, or another document stating that they unconditionally support the Pres going forward.

The October resolution was filled with pre-conditions that the Pres had to meet in order to gain Congress' suppport for his actions.

Kerry and other Dems, and many Repubs, insisted Bush exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means, through the UN before they would approve of any action in Iraq. It was the Pres who walked out(!) of the diplomatic efforts at the UN. He decided to violate the terms he agreed on for Congressional support-therefore COngress never supported Bush's unilateral actions in Iraq.

Kerry has consistently stood behind the fact that the Pres abandoned these diplomatic efforts and has made a mess of US-international relations in doing so. Kerry is pragmatic. There are American troops in Iraq, and they must currently be supported, since they are also American citizens who this nation has a legal obligation to protect.

So I am comfortable with Kerry and his stance. That is my litmus test. So calling the October resolution a vote for war is a misrepresentation.

I also like Dennis K. He is closer to my progressive ideas, but I am not sure how he will play with the majority of Americans.

Both Dennis K. and Sheila Jackson-Lee used the October Resolution as a basis to start a case to get an injunction against Bush to stop him from going to war based on its requirements to exhaust ALL diplomatic means to get Iraq to comply with its international obligations,

[Mechatanketra]

24. Oh, for pity's sake.

The way the division of War Powers works in COngress is that the PResident has full power to wage war under all and any circumstances, in which he believes there is some threat to our nation, to its national security, its citizens within and without the US, and dangers to American interests and allies.

BULLHOCKEY. This is exactly wrong.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. -- The War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 2(c).

For the cheap seats, the President's war powers are valid only in response to a real attack (not "perceived threat"), a declaration of war, or an act of Congress stating they're valid (which is pretty much equivalent to a declaration of war).

And the http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/house_resolution.pdf">Iraq resolution contained explicit language stating that it was, in fact, the "specific statutory authorization" required by the War Powers Act. Without this bill, Bush would have had no legal authority to attack Iraq. (OK, theoretically, he could have cited the 9/11 resolution by itself, which is itself another specific statutory authorization; though he actually did in tandem with the Iraq resolution authorization, I think basing the war on this authority alone would have been a case so thin even the GOP would have hung him out to dry.)

The resolution itself is too long to print here, but I've provided the link. The blunt summary:

• The Iraq resolution did, in fact, activate Presidential war powers rather than constrain them;
• The resolution placed no limits or conditions on those powers, save that they be directed at Iraq (and not, say, France or Canada);
• the resolution did not obligate Bush in any fashion to consult with the UN or abide by its decisions (check it out: it "supports the efforts by the President" to work through the UN if he wants to, but that's kept entirely separate from his authorization to go to war);
• ergo, any statement to the effect that a "yes" vote on the the Iraq resolution was opposing Bush is a lie.

So, in summary, go peddle this crap somewhere else. Kerry did, in fact, vote in favor of bombing Iraq. Period. Whether he's a dupe, a crook, or a coward, only he knows -- but what he wasn't, when push came to shove, was somehow in some fashion against the war, no matter how much his supporters want it to be otherwise.

[XanaDUer]

26. No need to be so hostile.

Really.

Anyway, getting back to the issues, the war powers resolution has not yet been declared constitutional:

The Power to Declare War

Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to declare War." As Hamilton noted in 1793, this was an "exception" to the general grant of "executive power" to the President, and thus was intended to be narrowly construed <15>
.
One of the common errors in discussing the scope of this exception to the President's general "executive Power"-a power reinforced by the specific recognition in article II, section 2, that "he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" <16> -has been to focus on the meaning of the term "War" under the Constitution. Congress is not granted the power of "War," but rather the more limited power "to declare War," which was a term of art from the Law of Nations with a clearly understood meaning in 1787.

The Framers were remarkably well-read men. The publicists with whom they were familiar in this area- writers like Grotius, Vattel, and Burlamaqui-all argued that a formal declaration of war was unnecessary for defensive hostilities <17>. It was only when nations were at peace and one wished to initiate an offensive (or what we would today call an aggressive) war that it was necessary to declare war. And this distinction between the President's right to use force defensively, but requiring legislative sanction to initiate an offensive war, was evident in the debate at the Philadelphia Convention over Madison's motion to give Congress not the power "to make War," but the more narrow power "to declare War." <18> In 1928 <19> and again in 1945 <20> , the world community by treaty outlawed the aggressive use of force among nations, and in the process made the declaration of war clause a constitutional anachronism. It is no coincidence that no sovereign state has clearly issued a declaration of war in more than half a century <21>.


http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/Terrorism/warpowers.htm


Page 1

Congressional Research Service
˜

War Powers Resolution:

Presidential Compliance

Updated September 11, 2001

Richard F. Grimmett

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division


SUMMARY

Two separate but closely related issues
confront Congress each time the President
introduces armed forces into a situation abroad
that conceivably could lead to their involve-
ment in hostilities. One issue concerns the
division of war powers between the President
and Congress, whether the use of armed forces
falls within the purview of the congressional
power to declare war and the War Powers

Resolution. The other issue is whether
Congress concurs in the wisdom of the action.
This issue brief does not deal with the substan-
tive merits of using armed forces in specific
cases, but rather with the congressional autho-
rization for the action and the application and
effectiveness of the War Powers Resolution.

The purpose of the War Powers Resolu-
tion (P.L. 93-148, passed over President
Nixon’s veto on November 7, 1973) is to
ensure that Congress and the President share
in making decisions that may get the U.S.
involved in hostilities. Compliance becomes
an issue whenever the President introduces
U.S. forces abroad in situations that might be
construed as hostilities or imminent hostilities.
Criteria for compliance include prior consulta-
tion with Congress, fulfillment of the reporting
requirements, and congressional authorization.
If the President has not complied fully, the
issue becomes what action Congress should
take to bring about compliance or to influence
U.S. policy. A new issue has become congres-
sional authorization of U.N. peacekeeping or
other U.N.-sponsored actions. For over 27
years, war powers and the War Powers Reso-
lution have been an issue in U.S. military
actions in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Cen-
tral America, and Europe...

A longer-term issue is whether the War
Powers Resolution is an appropriate and
effective means of assuring congressional
participation in actions that might get the
United States involved in war. Some observ-
ers contend that the War Powers Resolution
has not significantly increased congressional
participation, while others emphasize that it
has promoted consultation and served as
leverage. Proposals have been made to
strengthen, change, or repeal the resolution
None have been enacted to date


http://216.239.39.104/search?
q=cache:d7YJpWQ6ZAoJ:nussle.house.gov/warpowers.pdf+%22war+powers+resolution%22+%2Bunconstitutional&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


War powers act
should be repealed

The issue: A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing President Clinton of violating the War Powers Resolution in the conflict in Yugoslavia.
Our view: The War Powers Resolution should be repealed.

THE War Powers Resolution of 1973, resulting from the political turmoil of the Vietnam War and enacted over President Nixon's veto, requires a president to obtain congressional approval for "introduction into hostilities" of U.S. armed forces for more than 60 days.

Opponents of the Clinton administration's policy in Yugoslavia are citing the resolution in calling for an end to U.S. participation in the conflict.

However, the resolution muddies rather than clarifies the war powers of Congress and the president. It should be struck down or repealed.

The lawsuit is based on a 213-213 vote by the House on April 28 on whether to authorize U.S. participation in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Clinton ignored the tie vote and continued the bombing beyond May 24, the 60th day of the NATO action.

http://starbulletin.com/1999/06/09/editorial/editorials.html

But the vote refusing to adopt S.C.R. 21, authorizing Clinton's bombing campaign, was a giant step in the right direction...

The War Powers Resolution Requires Congress to Act

The President has introduced U.S. forces into hostilities without the express statutory authorization required under the War Powers Resolution to continue the operation beyond 60 days.
The President's report to Congress is factually inaccurate and fails to state adequate grounds for Congress to authorize the operation.
Congress should halt the operation immediately by prohibiting the use of funds, because:

The operation is a diplomatic miscalculation allowed to run out of control.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director, CIA advised the President the operation might fail or worse, backfire, as it has.
NATO credibility is not an issue - NATO was never intended to fight a limited war to direct a political result inside a sovereign country.
The operation's stated objectives cannot be achieved.
The operation will destabilize Europe and risk more civil wars
Continuing the operation will worsen the humanitarian crisis and increase the cost of a peaceful resolution.
Continuing the operation risks a larger conflict.
Continuing the operation jeopardizes more vital U.S. strategic interests.
Continuing the operation will worsen the ecological disaster we have already caused in Europe.

Congress must act to start the 60-day clock running.

So flat out, all the War Powers resolutions requires is consultation with Congress. Congress has no power to actually tell the PResident he can or cannot engage in use of force.

http://www.citizensoldier.org/illegalwar.html

This is not about Iraq, but Clinton's war.

Notice that one of the above links, the first article, indicates that when Congress issues such an act, as the October Resolution, they must look at the PResident's actions to determine whether he has complied with the terms set within the resolution.

So far, all judges looking at Bush's actions towards Iraq have ruled that the Pres is in full compliance (legally if not morally) with the war powers resolution. Congress is supposed to have examined whether the Pres has or has not complied with the terms of the Oct resolution.

That event has never occured.

[Nicholas_J]

33. Sorry you are wrong

Since 1972, every president who has engaged in ANY type of use of force against any nation, even those who have dsone so without congressional support, and as Liberty Chick noted, even Clinton, who congress set limits on, contiued and were NOT found to be in violation of anything.

The every case in which the War Powers Act was used to try to stop a presidents actions or condemn them have been ruled NON-JUSTICABLE.
WHich meas the courts are saying that COngress has NO POWER to stop or does a president require ANY authority in order to use force.

Again Liberty Chick correctly notes that even with any legislative attempt to limit te presidents actions, congress must examine those actions to determine if the president has COMPLIED with the restrictions set upon the president directly notes this:

Compliance becomes
an issue whenever the President introduces
U.S. forces abroad in situations that might be
construed as hostilities or imminent hostilities.
Criteria for compliance include prior consulta-
tion with Congress, fulfillment of the reporting
requirements, and congressional authorization.
If the President has not complied fully, the
issue becomes what action Congress should
take to bring about compliance or to influence
U.S. policy. A new issue has become congres-
sional authorization of U.N. peacekeeping or
other U.N.-sponsored actions.

http://216.239.39.104/search?
q=cache:d7YJpWQ6ZAoJ:nussle.house.gov/warpowers.pdf+%22war+powers+resolution%22+%2Bunconstitutional&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Now you show me the additional acts of congress in which they revired the presidents compliance with the act, which already was used to try to get an injunctions against the president.

THae case was accepted by the Federal DIstrict of Massaichussetts, and accetpted the arguments that the October Resolution:


They further argue that none of the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, including last October's Iraq resolution, confers sufficient authority for the war the President is threatening. The October Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - purports to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."" Plaintiffs' contention, based on the language and legislative history of the resolution, is that unless narrowly construed, this resolution would be tantamount to congressional abdication of its non-delegable trigger power and would impair separation of powers. And, they contend, such a narrower reading of the statute is plausible, as the statute appears to tie the start of hostilities to the progress of international diplomatic efforts, reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations, to bring Iraq into compliance. Thus, Congress's October Resolution can reasonably be read as expressing three ideas: (1) Congressional support for international diplomacy on the part of the executive; (2) Congressional authority for limited use of force to protect American troops; and (3) the inclination of Congress to provide the necessary assent if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

But in Doe v. Bush the district court declined to join the debate at all. Instead, it opted out of the debate altogether, adopting the Government's position claim that the matter is a non-justiciable political question. Under the political question doctrine, of course, the judiciary declines to wade into certain supposed "political thickets," theoretically leaving the underlying constitutional issue undecided. But, especially given the nature of the debate, invocation of the doctrine - ostensibly to avoid decision - still adds "precedent" to the pro-executive side of the scale. Judicial demurral leaves a vacuum that the executive will fill on its own terms - thereby creating new facts to support its exclusivity claim. The executive's evidence that it possesses the trigger power is that it has many times in the past exercised it absent congressional authority and without judicial interference. This is a win-win syllogism for unchecked executive authority: its use of the power is an unreviewable political prerogative and, ipso facto, proof of its legitimacy, and so the evidence in its favor is infinitely accumulative.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php

Sorry, the judge accepted the argument that the October REsolution did not "Authorize the war" but again declared that the entire case was non justicable.

THe attorneyts for the plaintiffs have considerablly more expertise in COnstitutional Law than you, and used the act as an instrment to CONSTRAIN the president. If it had been an authorising document, the judge would have never healr the case becasue they would have been arguing for an injunction to stop the president from going to a war by using the very document that you are claioming gave him authority to go to war.


Six members of the House of Representatives along with several families of American servicemen and women filed suit in federal court against the President and Secretary of Defense to stop them from going to war against Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war. The plaintiffs allege that (1) the resolution passed by Congress in October 2002 authorized the President to disarm Iraq but not to declare war, and, (2) if the resolution were interpreted to give the President the discretion to wage war, it would be unconstitutional because only Congress can declare war.

The plaintiffs include Representatives John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan; Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois; Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas; Jim McDermott of Washington; and Jose E. Serrano of New York. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Boston.

http://www.civicmind.com/ccwar.htm

You are wrong. You are interpreting the War Powers act yourself, and unless you have a law degree and significant experience in trying such cases, I would suggest that you really do not know what you are talking about. The October Resolution only supported the president to go to the U.N., First utilize diplomatic means. secondly use force, wit U.N. approval, only for the PURPOSIES OF DISARMING IRAQ, and this with United Nations support. He can act to defend the U.S. ONLY if an imminent threat is proven. AND CONGRESS MUST, decide if the president has FULLY OBSERVED the terms of the act, in order of precedent, before support for his actions is given. Sorry, the only way you can interpret the act as an authorization of war is if you agree that the president has MET all of the terms of the act, and has followed the order of the terms within the act. Otherwise, the October Resolution did not give any such authority. And since according to your beleif that the president does not have the power to declare war, and that your belief that the president does not have the power to engage in use of force, you must believe that the October Resolution was a DECLARATION OF WAR....And you will not find any such wording in the act itself. That a state of war is now found to exist between the UInited States and Iraq. It aint there.

Also take note of this section of the War Powers Resolution:

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-- (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth-- (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six month

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

So the war powers resolution grants the president the power to ACT without a congressional declaration of war, got into combat. and all he has to do is report within 48 hours of doing whatever he wants to, without any support or authorization of congress. All he needed to do was present his constitutional reasons (to protect the U.S. and its interests), OR to meet its treaty obligations under any number of defense treaties with the United Nations, any of the Middle Eastern States, threats from terrorist networks possibly stationed in Iraq. The WarPowers resolution is vague and the one thing it CANNOT do is remove the presidents authority to order troops into immediate action to any threat percieved by the president).

ANd still, you have not provided on bit of evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled this act Constitutional. All presidents claim it is unconsitutional and therefore, since there has been no decision other than that this is unjusticable, that is to say, that neither congress orvthe courts have the power to rule on it, or enforce it. The act cannot stop the president from acting.

And you have not provided ANYTHING but your own opinion that the October Resolution was a "DECLARATION OF WAR" or allowed the president to act unconditionally.

YOu need proof. The fact that the act itself has been used as a case againt the president going to war, and is now under appeal, indicated you are not quite correct in your opinion.

Ta-Ta.

[JohnKleeb]

30. thanks liberty chick I understand a little now

I really do. I could by far support him hes my self made backup.

[XanaDUer]

31. LOL!

So you accept my "peddled crap"?

:)

[RummyTheDummy]

40. You have to be kidding me!

"Kerry's vote was firmly a vote to oppose Bush's actions, and not a vote on the war."

Pardon me, I mean no disrespect, but that's the biggest load of pure horse shit I've ever heard in my life.

[HFishbine]

48. With all due respect

to Kerry supporters, this doesn't have an honest ring to it:

"Kerry's vote was firmly a vote to oppose Bush's actions, and not a vote on the war."

If Kerry truley wanted to oppose Bush's actions in the strongest way possible, he would have voted against the resolution.

People are hungry for straight talk. Kerry has so many good things going for him, don't bring him down by making excuses.

For Kerry supporters, you need a one sentence, honest answer to this question that does not misrepresent what the resolution actually authorized or Kerry's position: "Why did Keryy vote in favor of the war resoultion?"

[killbotfactory]

51. Kerry should have opposed the war, if he wasn't for it.

I can give you the answer that Kerry supporters will give about his Iraq vote: Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution to encourage Bush to work through the UN. Kerry would have preferred Biden-Lugar, which would have forced Bush to work through the UN.

All of this is meaningless, however, since Kerry threw his support behind the war even after Bush cut short inspections and bypassed the UN (a rush to war, in Kerry's own words), despite his previous claims that he would never do such a thing.

He talked a lot about how he would have "strongly preferred" that Bush wouldn't have bungled diplomacy, and that we should never go to war unless we have to and should never rush, but in the end that's what he threw his support behind.

[CWebster]

52. Ha!

the apologist need to obscure reality with reams of words!

Now you know how politicians live with themselves in rationalizing the truth.

[sangha]

59. Why only one sentence?

Would you limit the other candidates to one sentence?

I can answer your question, but not in one sentence.

[HFishbine]

60. sanha

Well, I said one sentence because that's what works best for public consumption.

But sure, if you need a few paragraphs, go ahead. I'm listening.

[CWebster]

61. He

was speaking your language?

;-)

[Octafish]

2. Vast Liberal Democrat War Hero Conspiracy

From the Party that brought you Camelot.



Young John Kerry, left, sails with President John F. Kennedy
aboard the 62-foot Coast Guard yawl Manitou
in Narragansett Bay on Aug. 26, 1962.

[XanaDUer]

15. What a beautiful picture!

I wish I could have been there.

I cannot wait until Kerry is leading the charge to look into what went wrong with Iraq, WMDs, "what the president knew and when he knew it", the whole smack.

I'll tape it.

[Octafish]

22. Great days can come again, LibertyChick!

They won't be the same, because we've lost so many along the way, but what they shared is alive and makes all the difference still — a dynamic vision for a better tomorrow and an America that is the light of the world.

PS: Regarding the return of Constitutional law and televised trials in 2005 — I hope Leavenworth has 24/7 Webcam to "capture" the part where the Bush Organized Crime Family pays back their debt to society for the rest of their natural days.

[JohnKleeb]

16. Those Kennedy connections make him number 2

And I definely like him. If Kucinich drops out I think I will go for Kerry. He's convinced me, sorry Dean but I prefer John Kerry because overall hes the better candiate and guy for the job.

[phillybri]

49. Isn't more people at DU a good thing????

Why is there a problem with more people getting involved and taking an interest in our candidates???

:crazy:

[CWebster]

53. Open the flood gates of gushing

for the new JFK.

Almost as good as the Lennon shot in the Kerry scrapbook. The right connections to bank on.

[Octafish]

55. Kerry spoke at a peace rally with Lennon. Thought it was Dwayne at first.

It IS a great picture.

[CWebster]

56. Back when he was opposing unjust wars rather than

supporting them.

Do You suppose Lennon would stand next to him today?

Notice he has to bank on who he was and who he knew?

[Octafish]

58. Kerry doesn't need to bank on anything other than himself.

The guy has an 18-year record of doing the right thing in the Senate. Kerry went after BCCI and Ollie North and the Iran-Contra drug runners. He was so dogged in his pursuit of the Truth, the establishment Democrats kept him off the Joint House-Senate investigation because Kerry would demand the TRUTH come out. And that meant impeachment of Reagan and Bush.

Gee whiz. Kerry was practically alone then and people slandered him (and a lot of other good Congressmen, like David Bonior) for being a friend of the commies. You are deluded if you think Kerry is going to forget how to be brave today or tomorrow.



Shortly after taking office in 1985, Senator John Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa
went on a fact-finding trip to Nicaragua, where they met with Daniel Ortega (right) and other Sandinistas.
The trip was criticized when the Sandinistas cemented ties with Moscow.

[CWebster]

62. Then he doesn't need DLC help and funding,

huh?

And yeah, that Iran Contra investigation---what a difference that made! Why John Poindexter resigned yesterday and pretty soon they will catch Negropointe hiding out in the UN and who is that guy, Ollie North? Wonder where he is hiding?


Another photo from the ancient archives.

[Octafish]

63. What's your candidate EVER done?

Here's one thing some candidates don't like to TALK about:



Not many people have what it takes to earn a Silver Star.

[liberalnurse]

4. I agree with your assessment....

I noticed because they are so rude and hateful towards any Dean posts....

I would love to talk about any candidate in an adult fashion but it never works out that way...They just have one mission and they tend to be packing razor blades.

[XanaDUer]

8. Hi liberalnurse

I don't want to start a flame, and I have read other posts from you, and you seem like a cool and intelligent person.

However, I have seen many nasty, hateful posts from Dean people, including calling people assholes, etc.

Thankfully, most of these posters seemed to have been banned.

As for the original poster-yes, I'm a Kerryite, and it does seem to me that more Kerry posts are being posted.

Why, I cannot say.

[WindRavenX]

39. Really, I don't think Kerry supporters are hostile

And I drop out of a discussion once it reaches the " Canidate X sucks". The personal attacks seem to be going down, as we realize that Kerry IS going to be in the race, like it or not.
Honestly, as long as we don't take attacks on the canidate personally, there'd be a whole lot less fighting, IMO.

[KFC]

5. Yes. I get paid $1 for each pro Kerry post

I have almost earned $200 in the last month. Sweet.

And, by the way, who the hell is Herbert Dean?

[liberalnurse]

6. See, it's posts like

this that make DU look like a visit to the GOP....I just saw a post where a very fine poster elects to leave DU for statements like that...Soon, all the "evil duers" will be found here....

[blondeatlast]

11. Not until they reach 1000 posts!

[KFC]

12. Don't sweat it - Kerry will be an awesome president

I thought Dean Martin was dead.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Where do I sign up?

[red_house]

7. Not to be cynical.....

....but is this suspicious?....I'm still getting my feet wet here but I'll submit the therory that the country is finally turning its attention to election politics and you can expect flashes of people actively supporting their candidates....I'm betting that the latest DLC vs. Liberal Slugfest has got plenty of folks checking this crib for inspiration....Let's not fail them. Let's see what they have to offer.

[red_house]

9. hey, bright guy....

...it's "Theory" not therory.

[XanaDUer]

10. LOL!

are you a spelling Nazi on yourself?

Try the edit button. It's way easier, and welcome to DU!(wave)

[red_house]

13. THANKS!

:crazy:

And thanks also for getting the joke!....LOL

[blondeatlast]

42. Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with DU being a

campaign tool. Besides, on his book tour Will Pitt has been urging people to get on board (or, perhaps, on the board). He says the real truth is here.

So the Kerry campaign has discovered what the Dean camp already knew. More power to them both.

FWIW, I have seen the mud flying fast and furious on both sides. GD is not the place to educate yourself about the candidates.

Welcome to DU. redhouse!

:toast:

[WilliamPitt]

19. I met a bunch of Kerry campaign guys in Arizona

and told them aaaaaaaaall about DU.

This is a problem how?

[red_house]

21. My point exactly.

Unless this place is some kind of "members only" club, it's only logical to let things flow and see what happens....Eventually, the candidates WILL have to beat up on each other to get the job and I'd personally like to see even MUCH more honest debate.

[XanaDUer]

27. Yes, what is wrong with that ?

As long as we stay within the DU rules, what is the big deal?

[blondeatlast]

43. Okay, I swear I will start reading through the posts from now on

before I respond.

OTOH, what the hell . . .

[whirlygigspin]

23. it's like watching lemmings go over a cliff

follow me to the New & Improved Dukakis era!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

29. Hahaha

How long did the Dukakis era last?

Nominating Kerry will be worse. At least Dukakis' failure had no long term consequences. If Kerry gets nominated and loses the Democratic Party will be ripped apart and set back 30 years. It might even be the end of the party.

[Lady President]

25. I've told others

I can't speak for any other Kerry supporters, but I've told others about DU. At the Kerry Meet-up I told everyone about DU. I live in a conservative city with an uber-conservative newpaper, so it seemed natural to tell others where they could find alternative news sources~ that's my main reason for coming here. There was a worker for the Dem. party present and a sibling of a Kerry staffer present.

Also, I think every single day people are becoming more frustrated with Bush* and this place is a good fit. As the primaries season gets closer there will be more and more new posters (or people like me who rarely post, but spend a lot of time here.)

[jpgray]

28. Dean and Kerry supporters need to stop worrying about each other

Candidate/supporter bashing is silly and no one pays attention except the diehard explainers and smearers. Dean supporters here still outnumber Kerry's, so the pile-ons will be in your favor. Maybe you can discuss the fascinating issue of who started the Kerry/Dean war, or who is the meanest towards the other. Or which one is just "political" and which one is telling the "truth".

edit: clarity

[oasis]

32. What puzzles me is, what took Kerry's supporters so long in getting here?

Kerry should have caught on long before now.

[JI7]

46. he is keeping it low for now

he is focusing a lot on specific issues and making policy plans. i'm sure his campaign will pick up after summer. same goes for edwards.

[quinnox]

35. Yes, I have noticed a few

and I welcome them to this site! I don't know if they are from the campaign or not, but I hope this is just the beginning of a trend. The more, the merrier!

[Lexingtonian]

36. it's the obvious

In my opinion, as one of the early Kerry partisans around here, it's mostly simply that Kerry support is gelling and growing. Dean's base is squarely the sort of emotional and activist people who resort to the Net, Kerry's base is a different and more diffuse demographic and not as attune to the Net. (I'd distinguish them as energy vs. determination.)

[Bossy Monkey]

37. Maybe he hired those Blair Witch Project guys to do his publicity (n/t)

[ibegurpard]

38. Whaaat??

I thought only Dean's supporters were guilty of such things.

:eyes:

[molly]

44. Maybe they got the idea from the Dean posters?

who are they?

[tpub]

45. there has been no directive

that I'm aware of. (I host the New Orleans Kerry MeetUp.) I think because of the meetups and additional press the candidates have been getting lately, people are getting excited and getting involved. That's all.

I have noticed an influx of newbies posting Dean Dean Dean as well.

[HFishbine]

47. So What?

Who cares? It's not as if they are persona non gratta juts because they may be involved with the Kerry campaign. I like Dean, but if the Kerry campaign is paying attention to the ideas expressed here and contributing to the discussion within the rules of DU, then I say, "Welcome!" It's supposed to be a big tent, remember?

[Gringo]

50. I'm a Dean guy, and have no problem with Kerry posters

I've long admired Kerry. He's not perfect, nor is Dean. I'd be proud to have either as a nominee. They both have their strengths, and there is no reason for supporters in each camp to be at each others throats (even tho the candidates themselves may be).

I really think this thing is between Dean and Kerry, and it's not a bad thing. I'm more disturbed by the people who keep piping in with "Draft Gore!" or "Clark in '04". For some reason, they have this total lack of confidence in these candidates. I do not. I think they are both excellent. Kerry's war record works as a plus, as does his opposition to the war in Vietnam. Dean seems to be very savvy with the media and doesn't back down. And he clicks with young people.

[Parche]

57. I am a Kerry supporter

But I have no problem with Dean or any other candidate
except for lieberman
We should all work together because we have one goal that is
to defeat bush
But I know that Kerry is the one who can beat bush


JOHN KERRY PRESIDENT 2004

[CWebster]

54. Now that Kerry is DLC's posterboy

What do you want to wager that you won't hear A PEEP about their philosophy and policies? No, watch the spin be, they came to kerry to lead them because they saw the error of their evil ways.


So, where does the DLC collect it's money they intend to funnel into the Kerry campaign and elevate him as the annoited one?


No change on the horizon.