Ishtar II: The wrath of John

[Clark2008]

OK... I'm putting on the flame retardant, but I thought this was an interesting read:

It appears that John Kerry is planning to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, and assuming that General Custer is still unavailable, some Democrats will doubtlessly support the senator. I will not be joining them because, despite what many consider irrefutable proof to the contrary, I am not crazy. At least not that crazy, which isn’t saying much. Even the lunatic who shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster isn’t that crazy.

Kerry was unable to beat pitiful George W. Bush, whose record of incompetence is matched only by his record of graft. If Thomas Jefferson was the mind of the presidency, and Abraham Lincoln its heart, then surely Bush is the plumber’s cleavage. Nevertheless, the Purple Heart-laden Kerry was totally helpless against attacks on his patriotism by a deserter whose military career consisted of safeguarding Alabama taverns from Ho Chi Minh.

The die was cast shortly after Kerry clinched the nomination when, reacting to a Bush surrogate’s scurrilous allegations of adultery, the senator uttered perhaps the most delusional words ever spoken in the English language: “I am not worried about these smears, and will not respond in kind because the American people always repudiate gutter level politics.”

Game. Set. Match.

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050125_IshtarII.htm

[liberalhistorian]

1. I'm afraid I have to agree, as much

as it pains me to admit, because Kerry is a good man, a good senator, and he would have been a damn good president. But the writer's absolutely correct, it's really his own fault that he lost because it was his election to lose. When he didn't immediately come out swinging against the whole Swift Boat mess in August, I knew it was either over or close to being over.

The fact that he allowed himself to be painted as the unpatriotic, un-American one when Bush was the one who'd used his family name and connections to get out of Vietnam, then couldn't even be bothered to show up for the remainder of his cushy stateside National Guard duty, was just unbelievable. He had way too much faith in the American people, frankly. He should have hammered back at their smear machinery relentlessly, never, ever giving in or giving up and I still cannot believe he didn't do so. Even Clinton counseled him to do that, saying it was absolutely necessary.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Assuming he lost of course

I happen to agree with Karen Hughes re: the electoral landslide. If there was fraud, and the exit polls were correct, and there was an electoral landslide, we'd all be going "whew" at the bullet we dodged with the slow start but the great finish of "The Closer."

I'm hoping that if he tries again, this time without Shrum and Cahill and with folks who will let him go with his freakin' gut once in awhile, he might have a chance. Especially if he keeps up like he's going right now. Folks though he was dead coming into Iowa too. He proved them wrong.

Sometimes I wonder at the sentiment expressed by this article, because I can't help wondering if this person was ABB. It's like some people don't want to admit fraud because it would mean they'd have to admit Kerry won, and they didn't really like him much anyway, so they'd rather believe that he just lost and move on. Just the kind of stuff I wonder sometimes, is all.

[marcologico]

3. Look, he DID come out swinging. I heard him on NPR in August saying it

was baloney, he had surrogates saying it was baloney, they dug up a brand new "brother" to say it was baloney (the Chicago Trib reporter), they just didn't blow the whole bank account on it. It was August, remember? So they made a tactical mistake by not being as fanatically paranoid about it as Clinton suggested, can you blame them?

[radio4progressives]

4. Kerry is dillusional if he thinks he will be able to garner the needed

support. It ain't gonna happen.

Absolutely will not be there. Even after that disasterous campaign, he ended up breaking his word on the only promise he had the power to keep. How he could he be that out of touch?

Didn't we all drink the same batch of kool aid last time?

Never again.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. No need for the flame retardant with me...

I always wanted Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean. I would have loved to have seen Clark debate Cheney and Dean take on Shrub. This sentence says it all: "Nevertheless, the Purple Heart-laden Kerry was totally helpless against attacks on his patriotism by a deserter whose military career consisted of safeguarding Alabama taverns from Ho Chi Minh." All those who "handled" Kerry should never work again - I think any one of us on this site would have done a better job. And Kerry, as a "career politician," should have known better. He saw what they did to his "good friend" John McCain in South Carolina. The majority of South Carolinians sure as hell didn't "repudiate gutter level politics" during the 2000 primaries.

[liberalhistorian]

13. While I mostly agree with you,

I have to put on my own flame-retardant suit, and say that Dean would have done far worse than Kerry in the election. He just wasn't ready for a full-scale, national campaign. Maybe he will be in a few years, but he sure as hell wasn't this time. I think he would have gotten creamed by Bush. And many of his own advisers and campaign workers will agree, frankly. But I think in a few years that will have changed and he'll be a lot more seasoned and campaign-savvy.

[cidliz2004]

6. You are absolutely right!

Kerry could have been a good President. I like him and what he seems to stand for, but....He was weak going into this race by being a Senator and having a voting record to attack. He was weak by not coming out strongly about his position on Iraq. He was weak by keeping the gloves on, they should have come off. He was weak by allowing the Swift Boat Vets to smear him and not coming back strongly and directly against the smear campaign and not doing so IMMEDIATELY.

There was so much for Kerry to hammer at Bush on. Bush proved that you don't need to tell the truth, you don't need to use more than 4 letter words when talking to the American people, you don't need to worry about alienating "your base", you don't even need to do a good job! You can spend more money on campaigning than ever before while the deficit is skyrocketing - Bush won on likability and by repeating words that his public wanted to hear. Those words didn't have to be true they just had to say what his followers wanted to hear.

Bush at least had the courtesy to "tell his followers what they want to hear" Kerry never got that.

Many voted for Kerry in 04 while they held their nose, it won't happen in 08.

[OneBlueSky]

7. I agree 100% . . .

Kerry should have beaten Bush by ten points . . . more than enough to compensate for the fraud we all know took place . . . that he couldn't win against the worst president in US history says all I need to know about John Kerry, thank you very much . . .

[LittleClarkie]

8. You can't compensate for the fraud we think took place

No matter how many votes he won by, they were going to flip them electronically the other way.

If the exit polls were right, then they stole an electoral landslide. That should have been enought to fight the suppression. It wasn't enough to fight the outright electronic fraud. No amount would have been. No candidate would have done better. Bush Co. would have seen to it.

Nevertheless, I will be there. I don't give a damn what anybody says. He would have made a great president, and dagnabit, I'm going fight to get him in there if it kills me.

[OneBlueSky]

10. fact: senators very seldom win the presidency . . .

the last was JFK in 1960 . . . and before that, Warren G. Harding sometime back in the 20s, I believe . . . the Democrats need to go outside Washington for their candidate . . . and they certainly don't need one who will have to spend the entire campaign defending himself against right wing slander . . . with Kerry, 2008 would be a replay of 2004, with the same results . . .

[LittleClarkie]

11. Woo hoo, I hope so

Electoral landslide! And if we do our job and work for election reform, it'll be a visible victory this time. Hee.

Fact: sentators even more seldom try again and win. Last was Nixon in 1968.

Funny thing is, I think Kerry is sort of pulling a Nixon ala 1960. How ironic is that.

[liberalhistorian]

14. Yep, true enough.

And I really hate to say that, too, because I like Kerry and he could have been a wonderful president. But I hope he never, ever, runs again, and certainly not with the numbnuts he had running his campaign.

[zulchzulu]

9. JK still has my support

Now that he's de-Scrumed, all bets are off. And he did fight for the vote, despite the myths he didn't. And he is not taking shit from amy Repugs so far.

Give the guy who actually won the election and has been a solid progressive liberal for 20 years a chance. I don't give a rat's ass what some Sunshine Democrats whine about. Kerry would kick their candidate's ass in 2008 anyway.

I think we may see a revisiting of the Iran-Contra type scandal brewing too.

Stay tuned.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Alleluia, amen! Sing it Mahalia!

I'll be there too. I'll be the one wearing my Kerry GOTV Milwaukee 2004 t-shirt.

[foreverdem]

16. I'd support him again in a minute

I don't blame him for not responding to all the repukes threw at him, I blame his advisors. Kerry was livid that they advised him not to take them on.

[LittleClarkie]

18. There were reports that Shrum and Cahill were shouting ...

"Restrain the candidate!"

No, you dumb bastards. DON'T restrain the candidate. Let the candidate go with his gut. It is a good gut, and should be listened to most day.

Restrain the candidate... get out of the candidate's damn way, more like.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Excuse me, but when

and how the hell did he "fight for the vote?" He caved in after the election faster than the French sold out in WWII! It was like he couldn't concede fast enough, after promising during the campaign that he wouldn't do that, that he'd be tough and strong and make sure everything was on the up-and-up and all the votes were correctly and legitimately counted. Yeah, sure. Thanks for nothing, John!

[LittleClarkie]

17. Actually it was one of the slower ones in recent memory

Only Gore conceeded slower. Normally, when elections were more normal that is, the concession comes that night, not the next day.

"It was like he couldn't conceed fast enough." Repeating it won't make it true. If that were true, he'd have conceeded Tuesday night.

He was a presence in Ohio when he didn't have to be. He quietly kept the process moving without attracting too much attention. What would have been the point of even keeping the process moving if he didn't give a damn. Most of the country wasn't even paying attention. Only political geeks like us know even what he DID do in Ohio. He also gave money for recounts in other areas when he didn't have to. And if I'm not mistaken, the lawsuit he's a part of is not resolved yet in Ohio. As for Jan. 6th, he was asked not to be there by the Congressmen contesting, as it would have put the emphasis on him and not on the vote. So he stayed away and continues to get flak for it.

Not one for grandstanding, he has said he will put forth election reform legislation this year. If his efforts yield substantive fruit, I will be a happy camper. Hell, if he even puts the legislation in, I will be a happy camper, as it will show that he's doing exactly what he said he would, just in his own way. No more, no less. No hidden messages, no translation.

And I will support him again in 2008. You may do what you like. May the better wonk win.

[blm]

19. And WHAT media let Kerry's arguments and positions be heard?

And WHAT media is going to let the NEXT Dem flagcarrier be heard honestly?

The media touted terror as being Bush's strongpoint EVERY DAY while muting everything Kerry said about it.

It doesn't matter WHO the Dem is speaking, the only way they will be heard HONESTLY is after the GOP control of the media is exposed and examined.

The only way ALL Dems votes will be counted is when the GOP control of most of the voting machines is exposed and examined.

The only time Kerry and Bush were unfiltered was during the debates and Kerry won all three resoundingly. Bush's incompetence was glaring, but, shortly afterwards the media lifted Bush on the terror pedestal they built for him alone using the Bin Laden video.

There IS no fair playing field. Anyone who thinks Kerry was just a bad candidate is letting the media and voting machines, both controlled by the GOP, off the hook.

[DemDogs]

20. The problem

This is a problem for Kerry and for Gore. How do they create a different image in the mind of the public and the media than already exists after their campaigns? I can't figure out how they do this, and if they don't, I can't see how they can succeed. I am not saying it is their fault. I am just saying that I can't see how they make a new impression with the electorate or with the media who shape what the electorate sees.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Oddly, I think as Kerry remains visiable and gracious

and if Bush continues to sink slowly into the west, approval-wise, buyer's remorse might help some.

"Damn it, I shoulda had the Kerry instead of the Bush. Now my country's got indigestion."