Kerry Breaks Ranks

[ProSense]

Opinion

Kerry Breaks Ranks

The Nation
42 minutes ago

The Nation -- With his editorial in the New York Times on Wednesday; his remarks on Meet the Press this past Sunday; and his email and online petition calling for a withdrawal from Iraq today-- John Kerry has broken ranks with a silent Democratic leadership and joined the likes of Russ Feingold and John Murtha in taking a strong position against the war.

In addition to his new stance, it is good to hear that the man who wasn't known for punchiness on the campaign trail is striving for, in his own words, "pretty simple messages" such as, "Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Get out of Iraq. Have health care for all Americans."

Snip...

Nevertheless, this has been a good week for Kerry when it comes to will and guts. Let's hope he builds on it--and that his Democratic colleagues do the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060411/cm_thenation/1576391_1

The writer gives Kerry credit, but still gets the facts wrong. Kerry has spoken out many other times, including last June.


John Kerry Speaks Out on Iraq, Details Concrete Steps President Must Take to Rescue the Mission
28 June 2005 - Floor Speech

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=230
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=231

Kerry Email on Iraq
28 June 2005
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=232

Salon: What Would Kerry Do?
28 June 2005
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?page_id=233

Downing Street letter:
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/SSCI_Letter_Downing_Street.pdf

[NoPasaran]

1. Good for him

Although I wish he had done this back in 2004 instead of that "reporting for duty" crap.

[wisteria]

2. yeah, good fort him. I liked the reporting for duty though. !

[Vektor]

65. Hmmm..someone must have been sleeping...

The bashers usually are first to post their hateful drivel within 10 seconds.

Pavlov's dog must have been napping.:-)

[Vektor]

67. .

Dupe.

[0007]

3. Let it all hang out baby. Get nasty, bad ass and right down on the

floor there is no where to go except up, and this American loves it when someone speaks up!

[goclark]

4. His spine is getting tough

Now if he could only explain why he left us hanging with Diebold.

[BlueIris]

7. You might want to talk to the networks about that, hon.

And all those millions of folks you obviously didn't bother to try to explain election fraud to. Trust me, it would have taken a lot more than John Kerry--or any of those other public figures who also didn't get any airtime during which to talk about Kerry's 329 electoral votes--to get public support behind the reality of the fraud in absence of any media coverage. I know it's easy for posters like you to continue to keep scapegoating Kerry, in defiance of all logic, (had he "stood up" on November 3rd the way some of his critics here keep demanding, most of the verifiable election fraud evidence would have been obliterated) but it would really be much more helpful (and productive) if you could put the blame where it belongs. Which requires research and objectivity and a serious commitment to understand what happened and work to try to keep it from happening again. Others can't do every single last thing in this world for you, you know.

[goclark]

54. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear

I registered over 500 citizens to vote for Kerry/Edwards.

I think that is a "Serious Commitment" for Kerry and for the Democratic Party.


I worked many 8/10 hour days, and donated $$$'s left and right, believe me I have and still do have....

"a serious commitment to understand what happened and work to try to keep it from happening again."

That being said and I hope clearly understood, it was devastating to many to hear Kerry tell us that he would "have our backs" and for a variety of reasons, many of our backs didn't realize that he had them.

I worked night and day for him the last time and would support him if he ran again.

However,FRAUD should be front and center in our discussions because if they play the game on us this time, it will be for keeps. America as we know it will be a memory.

PEACE and UNDERSTANDING

[blm]

14. The same reason that EVERY Dem isn't on machine fraud - DNC didn't believe

machines were being rigged and didn't secure the machines BEFORE the vote, and after is TOO late for machines set up for onetime use.

Hopefully the new DNC believes in machine fraud and is alerting the Dems on the Board of Elections in every state to secure machines BEFORE the votes are cast.

[bahrbearian]

23. The DNC did know the machines were not secure,,DEAN

and Bev Harris did a test on the machines.. The DLC left it up to Die-bold to decide.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. Dean has never done anything in conjunction with Ben Harris

You need to get your facts straight before you open your mouth.

[bahrbearian]

34. Next time do your own research it was on CNBC

http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html before you open your MOUTH.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. And what came of it?

Dean is calling for an end to BBV now, right?

Oh wait, he's not. And Bev Harris is posting at Free Republic.

How'd all that work out for you?

[bahrbearian]

48. Once again you should do your own research

Bev Harris did not post on the Free Republic, her statements were posted there.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Under her own account name? I've seen them. She sure seemed

like she was answering people's posts. She was one of those saying that Andy Stephenson was faking his illness. She is therefore not terribly popular around here.

[bahrbearian]

52. I don't care for Bev either,, but she has not been proven to have

posted there,,, I've seen Ted Kennedy post there.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Sure seems like her

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=Bev+Harris

[ProSense]

And Donna Brazile was hired as part of the DNC election commission.

So what does it all mean?


edited to correct named in post title.

[bahrbearian]

43. Lets see Donna Brazile ? Wasn't she part the 2000 DNC .

committee, that did such a good job for Gore? Can you say DLC.

[ProSense]

64. What you're talking about? n/t

[LittleClarkie]

86. She was his campaign manager. Yes, she sucked at it. No, I don't think

she was DLC. So no, I can't say DLC, unless you can cough up a reason for saying that.

Centrist, maybe. She goes to lunch with Rove it is said. And she was simply agog when Condi got nominated. Sometimes I think she's going dark side. But DLC, I dunno.

[blm]

27. Sorry, but Dean didn't take it to the DNC as an issue in 2004. That demo

with Bev was as far as he took it then. Even seeing the possibilities then didn't convince Dean at the time to pick up the crusade or the microphone. My take is that Terry MacAuliffe didn't believe it, but, it is also unclear if Dean even went to him to report his misgivings or warn the party in any way.

Not sure why you think it's about DLC. Terry Mac was head of DNC.

[bahrbearian]

35. Wasn't it Kerry who Promised all the votes to be counted, then conceded.

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Aren't you a ...cough....

Nevermind.

[blm]

38. Kerry didn't really know about machine fraud till afterwards - The DNC

had the duty of securing the state voting infrastructure for ALL Dem candidates on the ballots.

Kerry was under the impression that there was a legal recount in Ohio when it happened. And Kerry is still in some lawsuits in Ohio on other voting issues.

Why pretend that the DNC is not responsible for this and why are you avoiding the reality of 2004? NO DEMOCRAT TOOK MACHINE FRAUD TO THE DEM PARTY AS AN ISSUE. Even those Dems who you think understood the problem then.

[bahrbearian]

40. When you concede before you ask for a recount,,, I guess thats

the same as asking for a recount.

[blm]

44. The recounted districts already reported.

Only recently was it discovered that the recounts were set up to deceive at the time.

BTW - you still aren't explaining why Kerry is the one you blame for machine fraud while excusing the DNC who should have handled it and ANY Dem who was aware of the machine problem should have screamed about it and led a crusade then BEFORE the election.

[bahrbearian]

45. If Kerry would have stayed in the race and asked for a recount,

instead of conceding. the DNC could have gotten involved, instead of waiting for Conyers.

[karynnj]

56. Asking for a recount when you are 100,000

behind is unheard of. The real way they cheated was that they had an inadequate mnumber of machines at Democratic strongholds. Clearly planned by Blackwell - but supposedly the information was given to the county election committees - and none of the Democrats noticed they had less machines than during the primary. No one protested ahead of time.

Could it have swung the election. Maybe - the question is if you took all the precincts with excessive lines and summed the votes cast. You can then ask what percent of people would have had to decide they couldn't or wouldn't wait. If that number is less than say 25%, I would say that I can believe (but not prove) that 1 out of 4 people(who after all might have had jobs or kids to attend to) couldn't wait 4 hours in a cold drizzly rain. (In fact I am impressed beyond words at the number who did - me, I vote in a Republican NJ county - I drove up said hi to two neighbors coming out of the building, found the right table, signed the book, handed my ticket to the guy there, went in the booth, very happily voted, waved to a neighbor, and walked back to my car - less than 5 minutes total. Is this fair?)

[bahrbearian]

63. I understand that , but he never let all of that sink in,, he could

have waited a day, to let it all sink in,,, no one was prepared for such an early concession. It helped chimpy promote his political capital.

[karynnj]

91. The norm in every modern day election

except 2000 was to concede the night of the election. Kerry conceded the next afternoon - when the number of outstanding provisional ballots couldn't mathematically have changed Ohio.

[MH1]

58. Whose votes weren't counted?

Link?

Kerry's giving a concession speech - much later than any presidential election since 2000 - made zero difference legally. The ballots were counted. As for any "ghost in the machine" theory, there was absolutely nothing Kerry or ANYONE else could have done about it after the fact.

It is correct that there was insufficient response of the public to what happened in 2000. I know, I was there. Just curious, where were you on May 19 2001?

[goclark]

55. I sure do hope so cause it doesn't seem to be coming together

fast enough IMO.

It should be banner headlines and it gets tiny print on the back of the 35th page.

[LittleClarkie]

84. Speaking of which, isn't the Ohio lawsuit he's involved in coming up

in May? I wonder if it's til pending, or if something has happened with it. All I know is the lawyer's name is Don McTigue.

Left us hanging, did you say?

[LittleClarkie]

88. Uh, August 2006. It'll be a while.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

[rniel]

5. I think the breaking point for him

Newt Gingrich says get the troops out.

So Kerry realized, damn I'm now further to the right than Newt Gingrich. Time to change my mind.

[Talismom]

6. So how come Clinton and Schumer haven't come to this

realization? Makes me sick!

[rniel]

9. Whichever way the wind blows

Getting elected is all that matters. They think they are playing it safe. Maybe they figure after Bush nukes Iran his popularity will go up to 85% and then they will ride that wave. Yippie!!

[Vincardog]

18. Clinton's strategy for 08 is to be "Tough on TERRA" does anyone have her

email? I want to tell her that is the wrong message. That is the sure way to make Sure we loose in 06 AND 08.

[TayTay]

8. I think it was a lot of things

including 24 dead from Massachusetts in this war. 24 letters to write to families that say, "sorry for your loss and thank you so much for your service," and, perhaps, wondering what the hell that service, loss and sacrifice went to if the Iraqis won't get their own act together.

[cali]

11. Yes, 24 dead is awful, but

I get increasingly bitter at the toll this war has taken in my state. We've lost (Vermont) one less than Mass, and we're what, 1/6 the size? Two have been from my tiny town. I know both families, albeit only in passing.

To the topic at hand: I wish people wouldn't blame the Iraqis. We're the ones that invaded and let loose the dogs of war. "Getting it together" under these circumstances, is an almost impossible job. Yes, I want to get out of Iraq, the sooner the better, but the failure isn't the Iraqis, it's ours.

[TayTay]

13. Not the Iraqis. Not the people of IRaq

I would never blame you for Bush. But the IRaqi politicians need to form a government. They need to act on that Dec. 15th vote and form a government. That is critical. They have to start acting like they want to start controlling their own country. This is critical. If we drop back on the argument that 'The Americans screwed everything up so badly that we, as Iraqis, can never govern ourselves' then the US will never leave this country.

[blm]

16. It's Iraqi POLITICIANS, nor Iraqi people. That would be like blaming us

for Bush and the GOP leaders.

[blm]

12. Except Kerry submitted the first withdrawal plan in October.

This new withdrawal plan is based on the development of civil war and the fact that Iraqi politicians haven't budged in 5 months since their last election.

[sandnsea]

92. Actually BLM

He called for the withdrawal of troops during the campaign. He said if his plan for Iraq was implemented, we could begin to withdraw troops in 2005. That's the kind of opportunity we've missed with this endless bickering over the vote and "out now" verse "out how". If we'd rallied behind a plan to get the troops home, Iraq might actually be a peaceful place today. Sad.

[karynnj]

19. Did you read the Newt article?

He is intent on regime change in Iran - we're done with Iraq.

Also, can you really suggest that last week, Senator Kerry woke up and said I better write an op-ed for the NYT that says we need to get out of Iraq because Newt is going to call for this next week?

Kerry has spoken of this from at least March 17 - when in a far less detailed way he spoke of the civil war and getting out on Imus. Earlier that week it was also the likely conclusion from his questing and comments to Rice.

[wisteria]

97. You are correct. I heard and read Kerry's words on Iraq also and

his opinion IMO, changed before he mentioned it on March 17th to Imus.

[MH1]

10. Wow, the Nation.

They hate Kerry. So this is interesting.

[karynnj]

20. True - that's why I cancelled it

One too many nasty snarky comment.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Now THAT puts a different perspective on things

Thanks, The Nation, for having an open mind.

[neoteric lefty]

15. He was being interviewed a few days ago (maybe a week)

and he gave the best argument about getting out of Iraq, in terms of the truth on the ground, that I have heard.

He talked about our military being in the 3rd war of the conflict. First one was against Saddam. Second was against the foreign fighters. And now, we are fighting against the Iraqis themselves while they are engaged in a civil war. He talked about making a deadline for withdrawal, and telling the Iraqis hat we are gone on that day, whether or not you have a gov't in place. He talked about the Iraqis only understanding deadlines and that was the only way they are going to get real work done.

He was eloquent and honest. Whether you were in favor of the war or not, he made a lot of sense. It pains me everyday that he is not our commander-in-chief. Our men and women over there deserve better than the warmongers we have in place, right now. I just wish he could have been this bold in '04.

[Catrina]

22. What foreign fighters? Why does he always, even when he seems to

be saying what people have been waiting to hear, support the propaganda of the Bush administration. We are fighting the Iraqis!! Even the military admitted that the number of foreign fighters was pretty insignificant.

And he also is blaming the Iraqis, politicians or otherwise. They cannot form a government that doesn't meet with the approval of the Bush regime. This too, is the latest rightwing talking point. 'We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up'. Well, the Iraqis have been standing up.

I hope we get a candidate whose words don't always have to be interpreted, and supporters have to explain to us what it was he actually meant to say. I'm not especially stupid, but everytime I hear a statement from Kerry and take it at face value, I am told by his supporters that I didn't 'get it' ~ he really meant 'this or that'.

We were told that he was 'biding his time' when he conceded the election, gathering information, and like a good prosecutor, would come forth 'at the right time'. Well, I still haven't heard a word from him about the stolen election, despite all the evidence we now have.

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. We don't have any more evidence now than we did on November 3rd.

Sorry to pop your bubble. BTW, he's still involved in Ohio litigation, as he has been since November 3rd. Again, sorry to pop your bubble.

It's not his or his supporters' faults if you choose to see "right wing talking points" in the truth of what Kerry said.

[blm]

39. Why are so many so unable to comprehend simple points?

People get confused because most people are incomprehensive when they first read something, and the press cherry-picking quotes and taking them out of context has certainly helped make sure it happens more often than not.

Did you like the way Murtha spoke so clearly and the press turned around and within weeks turned his plan into "cut and run" and "surrender" to help confuse the public and match WH talking points?

[Catrina]

46. The press was unable to confuse most people regarding Murtha

He spoke clearly. Most Americans respect Murtha and agree with him, so the press may have tried, but his own words were pretty clear, impervious to interpretation.

What is out of context, eg, with Kerry's position on Venezuela?

Where has he ever said said the this war never needed to be fought? I have seen his statements about the fact that it wasn't fought PROPERLY!

And what is out of context about him blaming the Iraqi people? Even the politicians? That is Bush's position now. And people who listen to Bush and Kerry, who are not deeply involved, nor have the time to interpret the nuances, could be forgiven if they came away with the idea that both Bush and Kerry are in agreement on Iraq.

And does he really believe that the Iraqi government can do anything without the approval of this regime? Haven't read about the laws Bremer passed? Or more recently, how this administration has secured Iraq's oil. Where is Kerry on these issues? Does he think we have a right to make laws for Iraq, or to control their oil? I don't know, I haven't heard him object to any of this.

And what about the 'foreign fighters'? Another Bush attempt to deflect from the truth that the Iraqi people do NOT want us there? Apparently Kerry is with him on this also despite all the reports that foreign fighters are in the minority. And why did it take him so long to come to the 'right' decision about this war? Until it was politically safe to do so? That is certainly the impression I'm getting.

I wish he had had that position in the beginning, when he ran for office. Yes, it might not have been popular, but so what? It was the RIGHT position to take.

Sorry if I like politicians to be clear ~

[blm]

57. He said American soldiers shouldn't be dying while Iraqi politicians take

no steps to form a functioning government even after 3 elections and 5 months later. And Bush is letting them get away with dawdling because he wants the chaos not a real solution. Kerry's way requires REAL diplomatic effort and leveraging just as they did with Dayton Accord under Clinton.

If you can't understand that difference then that IS a problem, but it's not Kerry's.

And if you asked most American people what Murtha's plan is they would say leave immediately - or retreat - or cut and run - because THAT is what the media has told them.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Didn't they hear? He's just following the herd. It's ever so safe a stance

Doncha know.

:sarcasm:

[bahrbearian]

21. I guess being a Centrist Democrat didn't work so well

to little to late, I do like John Kerry thought, he seems to be returning to his Roots.

[blm]

24. Kerry was never a centrist. His 20 yr record proves it.

In fact, the career vote ratings for all the 2004 candidates had Kerry rated closest to Wellstone.

[bahrbearian]

28. He never ran as a "Wellstone" democrate

Wellstone Didn't vote the IWR, and Wellstone knew how to fight back.

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. Wellstone voted for DOMA, and Kerry didn't

OMG, Wellstone isn't a real "democrate"!!

People like you would bitch about Wellstone if he were alive, because no one can be as perfect as you. I have nothing but contempt for those who said the exact same crap about Wellstone when he was alive as they say about Kerry, Durbin, etc now, but who now have canonized Wellstone posthumously and pretend that they idol-worshipped him all along. It's actually quite crass.

[blm]

32. Wellstone would have had the same current media obstacles as all Dems

now have - lots of Dems fight back and you rarely hear about it.

Like when Kerry attacked the Swiftliars in a speech at the Firefighters Convention in midAugust 2004 - no media covered his speech and few even reported it. I am sure the neglect was deliberate. You can verify the many actions took in the DU Research Forum.

I disagree with you about how Kerry ran - his issues and Wellstone's were often the same and in many ways indistinguishable.

[Zodiak]

85. tis true

Kerry rates high. He is one of our top five progressive Senators.

1. Harkin (IO) 88.9
2. Lautenberg (NJ) 83.3
3. Boxer (CA) 83.3
4. Kerry (MA) -DLC 77.8
5. Kennedy (MA) 77.8
6. Feingold (WI) 77.8
7. Durbin (IL) 77.8

That being said, I do understand how much we wanted to get rid of Commander Codpiece in 2004. Kerry was our man, and he did not do it. Rational or not, the suffering Bush inflicts upon us will cause a bit of gnashing teeth about Kerry....especially among the passionate who placed too much faith in that passion. Passion no longer wins elections...controlling the election infrastructure does (from the media to the counting of votes).

I think the greatest influence on Kerry changing his opinions on issues (like the war) is his exposure to the grassroots. He, like so many Democrats, was insulated heavily by consultants....they advised him wrong. That is my belief.

There is nothing in Kerry's record to indicate he is a turncoat, a corporate crook, or a coward. There are a few of those in the Democratic Party, but it is NOT Kerry. Kerry believed too much in America, too much faith in justice and the rule of law...and he got burned. MAny of us were just as guilty as he.

Just my 2 cents.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Oh, please.

This "to (sic) little to (sic) late" crap is about as clever as Pauly Shore. It demonstrates an abject inability to look at reality, not to mention a rather sad knee-jerk example of groupthink. I don't take anyone seriously who can't add a comment of any thought or substance to a thread, and any mention of "too little too late" is so ignorant, so pointless, and so overworn and thoughtless that it brings the entire IQ of the thread down about 10 points.

[bahrbearian]

31. "sad knee-jerk example of group think" ?

I worked as a delegate in my district for Dean, I knew and told the Caucus that Kerry could not win. because of his centrist views,,, manly IWR,,," I voted for it , before I voted against it" thats what I warned them about before his winning the primary,, that is not "Knee Jerk" my Friend.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. Hahahahahahhahahaha

A DEAN supporter calling Kerry CENTRIST.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahhahaha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

51. I think that all of this New primary infighting right before election 2006

is destructive and not good for us.

I think that John Kerry is getting high praises for "his" plan and plenty of publicity, and making appearances all over the place, and that's just great!

I think those who don't think that Kerry's all that great, well that's ok too....and if there are going to be a bunch of Threads on Kerry, there will be some opinions that differ from the Kerryites who support John Kerry......

Calling each other Freepers & trolls (not in this instance, but I've seen that frequently lately), and stating that every sentence uttered about John Kerry, if not totally positive, is Bashing is really counterproductive to regaining congress in 2006.

My advice (although not sought after--that I understand).....we should all start concentrating on the congressional races, and putting out as much of "the word" as possible on candidates that we support.....as opposed to fighting about who's better than who, who's more centrist/liberal than who/who's the real leader of the party/who's plan's the best/who's the sorriest for their votes/.......yada yada yada.

I believe that most on this board, and those politicians that they might support all voted and worked hard for John Kerry. I know that John Kerry appreciates that.....and I know that Kerry hardcore supporters appreciate that as well.

There will be a whole lot of time after these elections to bicker and fight about who's what......for 2008.

I'm just saying....(so write up on Kerry's actions, and defend John Kerry, but lighten up just a tinch)

I'm almost hesitant these days to say anything in a Kerry thread, and therefore, I'm not able to appreciate and/or conduct a debate of a meaningful nature and ask the questions that I might want answered.....cause someone might decide that I'm a Freeper if I'm not as excited about what he's doing as others think I should be.

As a Clark supporter, I understand the need to defend attacks (especially non-factual ones/as opposed to those that are a matter of opinion based on debatable views...but defending with facts is much more powerful than defending with ridicule and name calling.

PS. I had to earlier hijack a Kerry thread to defend Gen. Clark from a Kerry supporter who was attacking him and calling him names. This is not good!

(on edit) PSS. And I'm not even say all Kerryites are the same....just like all Kerry Critics are not the same - Just wanted to make that point ultra clear!

Now go ahead and flame me......cause that's what I'm beginning to expect!

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. No, you're right, FrenchieCat

But as a Clark supporter, you surely do understand the differnce between those who have a genuine difference of opinion, make a valid point of criticism, and are open to debate, and those who say "Clark's a FUCKIN REPUBLICAN, WE DON'T NEED HIM, DINO IN DISGUISE!!" or whatever. There IS a big difference, and it seems like every time Kerry makes the news for doing something awesome, those people come out of the woodwork.

You're right that this is terribly unproductive, and I shouldn't have taken the idiot-basher bait... I am in a terrible mood today anyway and my impulse control is not what it usually is.

BTW, I have never seen you say anything remotely flamey about Kerry. If you have a difference of opinion, you state it respectfully and intelligently. There's a big difference between someone with criticism and a basher.

Sigh... it's probably best I just leave GD for today.

[karynnj]

41. Using quotes here is an attempt to deceive

IWR,,," I voted for it , before I voted against it" - The intent is to imply that Kerry said this about the IWR, and he didn't.

I've gone to Vermont every summer since 1990 - I read the Burlington paper - almost every summer it was the liberals mad at Dean for another thing. Kerry doesn't want to be boxed in by a label, he is not an ideologue - but by and large he has a solid liberal record.

[Mass]

66. You supported Dean and you have pb with centrists?

Dean is a centrist and a very good one!

[wisteria]

99. Funny, I though Kerry had the best chance of winning .I couldn't

fathom Dean even coming out of the Primaries with his positioning. Most of America wasn't buying into his position and he obviously wasn't able to convince enough people to even win them over. The mood of the county in 2004 was still supportive of Bush out of fear and perhaps a little optimism that he could pull off a win in Iraq and keep us safe. People were afraid, Dean didn't make them feel safe. I think Senator Kerry did a better job of that, unfortunately he couldn't overcome the negative tags given to our party by the Republicans in regards to defense and safety.

[Vidar]

42. Kerry is a fine senator.

[Vektor]

50. No surprise Kerry's kicking ass and taking names again as usual.

Even less of a surprise that his staunchest, whiniest, critics should come slithering out of the woodwork, en masse in response!

Gotta love that Pavlovian Predictability!

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vektor]

61. The reason "we" come out....

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl: :rofl:

Ahh....give em enough rope.

I was likely referring to RW trolls, but it's humorous that you thought YOU resembled that remark and included yourself in that group.

Honey - you're the ten or so. There's over three million "die hard Kerry supporters" still on his mailing list that are laughing at comments like yours every time they are uttered.

Get a clue.

[blm]

69. EXPLAIN your idea of GUTS in governance.

Because it takes a HELLUVA lot of guts to work to expose the worst government corruption and there is no one in government today who has done that more than Kerry. So - what qualifies in your book?

You think we don't get SICK AND TIRED of having to rebut LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE coming from people who don't even KNOW what happened in the world before 9-11, what happened in their own country and its government bodies, and how it all connects to events that pre-date their span of awareness?

You think WE aren't sick and tired of sending people to the DU Research Forum to learn the truth for themselves reSwiftliar dfense and then have them post later the exact same lie they started with?

Don't even PRETEND that there isn't any orchestrated attacks on Kerry by operatives posing as leftists - it's quite obvious since most of the attackers come out when Kerry goes public with any position that counters BushInc effectively.

[sendero]

70. Puhlease..

... I'm so tired of hearing about what Kerry did 20 years ago. I just do not care about anything he's done before 2002 or so. And the record since is sadly lacking.

I've noticed a lot more folks who seem to be here ONLY to boost Kerry than I have folks here ONLY to get real - check out my posts only 1% of them are about Kerry, I'll bet 90% of yours are. Huh?

[Vektor]

71. Actually...

you are a loud and inaccurate presence on just about EVERY thread about Kerry.

And it is sad, really.

I hate to break this to you, but Kerry's entire track record of accomplishment is relevant, and most in office today cannot hold a candle to it, hence the bashing and jealous whining from so many of the usual suspects.

By 2002, he was only getting warmed up. He is in the news every single day, kicking ass and taking names, as one of the loudest and most vocal critics of this administration. The reason so many folks appear here to discuss Kerry's accomplishments is because THERE ARE SO FUCKING MANY OF THEM.

And it hardly makes you look good that we are all here appreciating the worthwhile leadership of a prominent and much deserving Democrat, and you are here repeatedly attacking one. So I'd not go on bragging about that too much, m'kay? It might arouse suspicion.

If there are people here whose posts are 90% about Kerry, it's because they know a good leader when they see one, and yes, he makes news daily for his various accomplishments. So yeah...we talk about that, naturally. Is that a problem?

What exactly is your fucking problem with people who like John Kerry? It seems a little bit pathological that you have to show up in very Kerry thread to piss on everyone's parade...like you cannot live without negative attention, or you cannot accept the fact that people like the man. Notice that the majority of Kerry supporters' posts are positive ones about why we like Kerry - that hardly hurts anyone.

HOWEVER-

Most of the frothing pavlovian bashers' posts are negative ones, aimed at tearing John Kerry down. This says FAR more about the people making those asinine posts than it does about Kerry. When one cannot help but consistently succumb to the demanding physical need to put someone else down to boost their own lagging sense of self worth, or perhaps, the image of another candidate that lost in the 2004 primaries, it speaks volumes.

Here's a novel idea: if you don't prefer Kerry, ignore the threads about him - that is, if you can restrain yourself from the unrelenting urge to be a Debbie Downer on a constant basis. Do you pull your Mom's hair until she smacks you, too?

My God, doesn't it ever get embarrassing for you?

[sendero]

73. What IS my problem with JK?

I'll tell you, and I can do it in less than a War and Peace novel like your post.

HE BLEW IT. HE GOT BEAT BY A MORON. HIS CAMPAIGN MADE SO MANY MISTAKES, AND HE IS SO UTTERLY UNABLE TO CONNECT WITH THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IT IS PATHETIC. IT WAS HANDED TO HIM ON A SILVER PLATTER - AND STILL HE COULDN'T TAKE IT.

And then the coup de grace - he LET THEM STEAL OHIO.

I don't hate JK, I just wish he'd let someone else have a shot. Because he's just not the right kind of man to be president. Fuck BCCI, Fuck Iran-Contra, they wiggled out of all of it anyways. I just could care less about it. And waiting 3 fucking years to FINALLY ADMIT WITHOUT WEASEL-WORDS that the IWR was a mistake, well DUH DUH FUCKING DUH.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Isn't it alittle early for that vein to be sticking out of your forehead?

The primaries haven't even started yet. The mid-terms haven't even started yet.

So you want someone else to have a shot. So vote against him in the freakin' primary already.

But the OP was talking about Iraq, and getting out of it. Or do you think that every time the man even sneezes, it has something to do with 2008?

He's a Senator, a memeber of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a veteran. As such, it is entirely appropriate for him to be speaking up, regardless of possible aspirations. If you think he's going to "go away", he isn't. At the least, he has a job to do. And regardless of whether you think his past is important, there is alot there that convinces those of us who pay attention to him that he is not coming out with an Iraq exit plan because he's running in 2008. It's because he honestly thinks that now, finally, whatever hope we had of a positive outcome in Iraq regarding them forming a government and getting their act together is nearly gone, and he doesn't think it's worth our soldiers lives. In other words, he means it, even if you disagee with him about WHEN he should have decided this thing.

Beating your tits on a messageboard isn't going to change his decision to run, or not to run. And it's awfully early. Surely you can see his name on occasion without an almost Pavlovian "NO KERRY IN 2008!) response.

[sendero]

80. No..

... since the Kerry forces have been trying to rehabilitate him since November 2004 when they spoke incessantly and erroneously about his "behind the scenes" work and are now trumpeting every utterance as a triumph of Democratic power, I assume they are already in campaign mode.

And unless and until I get booted off this board I'm going to be right there to offer a countervaling opinion.

[LittleClarkie]

83. It feeds on itself

We wouldn't react nearly as vehemently if we weren't confronted with so much

"Fuck him"
"He's only doing this for 2008"
"What happened to his campaign money"
"Why didn't he count the votes"
"Too little, too late"
"Skull and Bones! Skull and Bones!"

Repeated incessantly regardless of the thread topic.

which has been pouring out of some people since right after the election. The last one especially always struck me as quite a reality disconnect.

So some of us also see ourselves as a countervaling force. That might be what you're mistaking for "campaign mode."

Not to say, of course, that we wouldn't be quite happy if he ran again. But that's our right, innit. You pick someone else, and may the best politico win.

I too react negatively to what I consider 2008 threads. But they are mostly labeled as such. Cheerleading threads I call them. "We must have BLAH in 2008" I mean, it's one thing to post about a speech or something, quite another to just start a thread like that out of the blue.

But talking about his Iraq plan, and posting an article from a well-known magazine, doesn't fall into that cheerleading category. At the least, there is some substance. And I don't mind hearing when Dean, or Clark, or Edwards, or Warner, or Hillary, has given a speech or done something decent.

[sendero]

95. Well...

.. you are more reasonable than some of the Kerry-bots here, I'll say that.

And I completely agree on the S&B stuff, that's pure tinfoil. I'm not beyond believing in a conspiracy - but that would be one helluva elaborate conspiracy. The Repugs wouldn't have had to yank out all the stops in Ohio if the fix was in :)

But to be honest, I DO understand the anger at JK here. He made a lot of mistakes that were completely unnecessary, and since we only get this contest every 4 years, if I were king he'd simply not get another chance because he didn't earn it.

Lucky for him, I don't get much say in the matter :)

[Vektor]

100. I was unable to find

"countervaling" in the dictionary.

What exactly does that mean?

Is a "countervaling opinion" one of those wackadoo "all caps" insult-laced meltdowns we've been seeing all too many of lately?

Because a "countervailing" opinion is usually backed up with actual facts...not just baseless insults. But my, my, you really do spend an awful lot of time hanging out on threads about a man you hate, struggling in vain to convince his supporters not to like him, and getting laughed at in the process. How much masochism can one possess?

Tell me, do you pay a dominatrix to paddle you too?

[Vektor]

98. Um, wow.

One word - ZOLOFT.

War and peace, huh? Turns out the Kerry haters don't just suffer from penis envy, but literary envy as well. I'll take it as a compliment that you got your panties on such a bunch over my completely accurate assessment of your childish behavior.

Newsflash - the only Americans that cannot connect with Kerry are the ones possessing below average intelligence, and clearly there are a few of them in existence. That's hardly Kerry's fault.

So, yeah your increasingly irrational, freeperesque, "all caps" meltdowns are a thing of comedic value, to be sure, but at the same time, utterly inaccurate and a sad testimony to the truthfulness of my prior posts. I had hoped to point out how utterly bat shit most of his "critics" were.

Desired effect achieved.

Indeed, the inferior quality of the childish attacks on Kerry's sterling character say far more about the ones doing the attacking than the do about the hero himself.

But keep on.

[sendero]

104. You..

.. really are too tedious to read. Beleive me, I have no envy of your verbal or reasoning skills!

[Vektor]

106. I doubt that.

And if I'm so tedious, then why do you keep reading?

Masochism again?

The thrill of getting a spanking?

[sendero]

110. The point of my note..

... was that I'm NOT reading your long-ass boring posts. It's no surprise you like Kerry, like him you are as interesting as a cold mackerel.

[Vektor]

114. You must love Mackerel then!

Because here you are again.

:hi:

I'm sorry my posts are too advanced for your liking. Damn that pesky intellect of mine!

Perhaps "My Pet Goat" is more up your alley?

[wisteria]

109. Wow, you are angry and you are not being rational.

Did we participate in the same election with the same candidate and the same President who had the media in his hip pocket, money enough to buy any votes, and a campaign manager willing to sell his soul to win this election for his boss. Throw in a public scared to death we were going to be attacked again if we didn't vote for the President and there you have it a receipt for a win.

Senator Kerry ran a good campaign, he came very close to winning against a war time President. If you go back into our history you will find that Kerry received more votes against a war time President than any other candidate challenging a President at war. Mistakes were made, all campaigns make mistakes, but Senator Kerry has accepted responsibility for these errors. I can tell you honestly, that Senator Kerry is human and does make mistakes, but he learns from them and the mistake will not be repeated.

I am sad you do not recognize a good man, I appreciate what the Senator has been able to accomplish and I admire his drive and spirit. I would certainly vote for him again if we are lucky enough to get that opportunity.

[TayTay]

120. Gee, too bad that so many people are sending him money

and encouraging him to run.

Oh and those candidates that are inviting him to come and campaign with them are just too, too much, right.

Gee, money, supporters, candidates who actively court his presence and endorsements. Gee, I see what you mean. Poor guy.

[mtnsnake]

129. "HE GOT BEAT BY A MORON"

You just nailed it.

It's almost inconceivable, but it really did happen. Let's just hope that we never get subjected to such a mistake riddled campaign like that one ever again.

[Vektor]

134. And Sendero got BACKED BY A MORON.

Hmmm. It reeks in here.

[ProSense]

72. Anger doesn't change the facts. Start here

June 2002:

Fought Global HIV/AIDS. John Kerry authored major elements of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, legislation which at the time provided the most money ever for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. He sponsored the bipartisan U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002, comprehensive legislation that was unanimously approved by the Senate and became the foundation of the global AIDS legislation that was passed by congress and signed by President Bush.


And work your way up to April 2006 (Internet searches aren't that hard):

S.J.RES.33 : A joint resolution to provide for a strategy for successfully empowering a new unity government in Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 4/6/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 4/6/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[sendero]

75. You guys JUST DON'T GET IT.....

... this isn't about being a moral man. This isn't about introducing this legislation or that legislation or ANY OF IT.

A president HAS TO BE MORE than a policy wonk. A president has to connect with the public. A president has to capture the imagination of the electorate, with a vision for the future and the perceived competency and sincerity to make that vision happen.

Kerry doesn't have these qualities. He does not inspire. He does not have that intangible thing that EVEN GEORGE FUCKING BUSH HAS. He IS inconsistent in his views. I wouldn't call him a flip-flopper, but he has TOTALLY BLOWN IRAQ, starting with that INDEFENSIBLE vote.

I don't hate JK, I respect his work as a senator. But we have offer something better than him if we want the presidency.

[ProSense]

87. No, you keep changing. You said: "his record since is sadly lacking"

Now it's appeal?

Some polls for reference
CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. N=546 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
"Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2004: , or someone else?" Names rotated

2/24-27/04

Kerry 57%
Edwards 18%
Sharpton 4%
Kucinich 1%
Other (vol) 8%
Don't know 12%
Dean n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 19-20, 2004. N=391 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 6.
.
"Which of the following four Democrats would you MOST like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year?" Names rotated
John Kerry 54%
John Edwards 19%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Howard Dean (vol) 3%
None (vol) 2%
Don't know 16%

"If the Democratic presidential race comes down to a choice between John Kerry and John Edwards, which would you rather see as the party's candidate this fall?" Names rotated

John Kerry 63%
John Edwards 26%
Neither (vol) 2%
Don't know 9%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004. N=426 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.

"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ." Names rotated

2/16/2017

John Kerry 65%
John Edwards 19%
Howard Dean 8%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Al Sharpton -
Other/None/No opinion 6%

University of Connecticut Poll. Feb. 12-16, 2004. N=474 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic. MoE ± 4.5.
.
"Three main candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are still in the race. Who would you like to see get the nomination for president -- would you say ?"

John Kerry 64%
John Edwards 16%
Howard Dean 8%
Other (vol) 1%
Don't know 11%

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=377 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Thinking ahead to the 2004 presidential election, if you were asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee for president today, which of the following Democrats would you vote for? . . ."

2/5-6/04

John Kerry 43%
John Edwards 18%
Wesley Clark 11%
Howard Dean 8%
Al Sharpton 6%
Dennis Kucinich 5%
Other 1%
Not sure 8%
Joseph Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=383 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Now I'm going to name six Democrats in the race for president. After I read you their names, tell me which ONE you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year. Here are the choices . . . ." Names rotated

2/5/2006

John Kerry 48%
Howard Dean 13%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 9%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Other (vol.) 0%
None (vol.) 1%
Don't know 14%
Joe Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 28-31, 2004. N=420 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.8.
.
"Now I'm going to name seven Democrats running for president this year. After I read all seven names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president this year. Here are the choices . . . ."

1/28/1931

John Kerry 42%
Howard Dean 11%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Don't know 14%
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

"If you had to choose, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Howard Dean or John Kerry for president this year?"

1/28-31/04

Kerry 64 %
Dean 23%
Unsure 13 %

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 18-20 & Dec. 1-3, 2003. N=539 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.
.
"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."

Howard Dean 18%
Wesley Clark 14%
Richard Gephardt 14%
John Kerry 13%
Joe Lieberman 10%
John Edwards 6%
Al Sharpton 4%
Carol Moseley Braun 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Other/None/Not sure 15%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Ever thought would vote for other candidate:

Bush voters 16%
Never: 84%

Kerry Voters 15%
Never: 85%

All voters 15%
Never: 84%


http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_mindset-bush-kerry-supporters_%2001-05_pr.pdf

07/31/2004

Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush

BY CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY / STAFF WRITER

It was a day for diehards.

Whether they were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, determined protesters or curiosity seekers who simply wanted to witness history, the estimated 17,000 people who turned out to see presidential nominee John Kerry in Scranton on Friday all shared one common trait.
Stamina.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

Remember he got 59 million plus votes.

[sendero]

93. I said his..

... post 2002 record is sadly lacking.

George W. Bush sat, in Nov 2004 on the edge of a cliff of credibility and popularity. John Kerry could not push him over, but he fell off anyway just a couple months after the election.

[ProSense]

96. So now you're back to his record? See post 72. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

74. Your point?

You suggestin' somethin'?

Meanwhile back at the ranch:

You don't care about uncovering corruption?

You don't care about stopping war?

You don't care that Oliver North is still so pissed at him he's writing editorials in the Washington Post against him, sounding just like a Smear vet?

Why would his past not be relevant?

It's an indication of what kind of man he is. A good one.

[sendero]

76. I'm suggesting..

... ANYONE but Kerry or Hillary in 2008. Simple enough for ya? Because IMHO most of these Kerry rah-rah posts that pop up here every time Kerry passes wind that doesn't smell too bad are nothing but Kerry 2008 so let the debate begin.

[LittleClarkie]

77. Would seem to be a non sequitor. You appear to have an issue

with the posting habits of some folks. Was there something you were trying to say about these people specifically? Like they're shills or something? Otherwise, why would you care what freakin' percentage they post on one subject or another.

Not to mention we're not talking about 2008. We're talking about Iraq. Now. Fuck 2008 and the horse it rode in on.

[sendero]

78. Aboslutely..

.... there are shills here. If you don't think so, do some searches.

[LittleClarkie]

81. Which implies that they are getting paid. That's the insinuation that

bristled me. I get that enough on Daily Kos, the whole "you must be a staffer" thing.

It's just that, counter to popular opinion, Mr. Styrofoam Personality actually does inspire passion and admiration. We're not that different from the Dean people, the Clark people, et al.

[sendero]

82. I'm not suggesing..

... that every Kerry booster here is a schill. I'm suggesting that the ones who post ONLY about JK, well, it's mighty suspicious. And another thing, If you had a lot of time to waste, you could dig through my posts and find occasions where I praise JK. Somehow, I don't think you'd have similar luck finding instances where the Kerry boosters criticize him. Personally, there isn't a single candidate that I can't think of something to be critical or praising about.

I have no problem with someone from anyone's campaign being here, but I do think they should disclose that fact. Hypothetically.

[karynnj]

89. Do you accuse others of this?

There are user names I recognize as Clark, Edwards, and Feingold supporters. I never see tham mention anything but the postives. Of course, the Kerry supporters post very positive posts, though there have been posts where several of us have disagreed on some bills. By and large though, we are Kerry supporters because we do agree with him and trust him because he has so often done the right thing. You likely may not agree.

I will disclose the fact that I don't even know anyone who worked for Kerry. (I did make some calls from my local blue state county Democratic to voters in 2004, but I assume many here did more.)

[sendero]

94. Look...

... I'm not going to directly accuse anyone of anything when I have no proof.

But to reiterate, there are posters here who almost NEVER post on a single thread unless it pertains to their dearly beloved. And I find that suspicious.

No matter, the antidote to free speech is more free speech. And I'm here to give more. :)

[mtnsnake]

130. self delete

[karynnj]

137. As I said,

The same exists for every possible candidate. I could list names that consistently praise Clark (Edwards, or any other candidate), but I think that is against DU rules. I have NO problem with them - and in fact have often relied on their posts to know the latest on their candidates.

Maybe because Kerry was the nominee, his positions and life is better known to those who made the effort to read it - and he very impressive. (In fact, the biography of almost any candidate has to be or they likely wouldn't have risen to the level to be seriously consider. (I editted in "almost" to deal with Bush - who was likely a fronty man pushed by his dad.

I agree that a huge percent of my posts relate to Kerry. Not a surprise - I've learned to avoid the threads of some of the other candidates because I realize that less than 100% positive comments are not welcome and counter-productive. (I read far more threads than I poston.)

[Vektor]

101. Hmm...

"They're all out to get me!!"

"Paid shills! Paid shills!"

Sounds like a whopping case of Nixonian paranoia to me. Hon, if Kerry has shills, EVERY CANDIDATE has shills. Do some searches indeed. All over this board you find every member shilling in one way or another for their man or woman of choice.

BFD. Welcome to politics.

[wisteria]

102. If you don't care for the Kerry posts and want to continue to believe

he has not worked tirelessly for all of us recently as well as in the past than may I suggest you use your ignore button.

[sendero]

103. I have another idea..

... how about if I come in these threads and offer a counterpoint to the rah-rah sunshine that is being blown up DU's ass?

Thanks!

[Vektor]

105. Then prepare to get OWNED.

Because when the "counterpoint" is a bunch of B.S. aimed only at tearing down a man who you clearly have a personal issue with that borders on stalker-ish, then nobody is going to give that nonsense a free pass.

Your obsession with trying to make Kerry look bad is painful to look at.

Kind of like a colonoscopy.

[mtnsnake]

141. Someone would have to be under the age of 8 for YOU to own them

and a moron besides!

[ProSense]

107. While you're pulling stuff out of people's a**, facts are still facts n/t

[sendero]

108. Name..

.... one fucking thing I've said here that isn't factually correct or opinion. I'm fucking waiting, I'm tired of you folks, put up or shut up.

[ProSense]

111. Everything you've posted is your opinion. n/t

[sendero]

118. So...

You can dislike me and my opinion all you want but don't accuse me of being dishonest, that is one fault I don't have.

[ProSense]

122. OK, you haven't presented any facts to back up your opinions. n/t

[sendero]

124. Bullshit....

... here's a fact for you. It was common knowledge that the Republican party was working hard to "fix" Ohio. What did JK do? As far as I can tell, NOTHING. After the election, when many people were raising questions about Ohio, what did JK do? NOTHING.

My opinion is that a person applying for the highest job in the land should have enough management skills that SOMETHING could be done about the wholesale election fraud perpetrated in Ohio.

What did JK do? NOTHING. And he wants to be president?

---
JK claims that he took W at his word, that war was a last resort and that the IWR was not an authorization to war, but an authorization to use war as a last resort. WHAT PLANET WAS HE LIVING ON? By this time it was READILY APPARENT to anyone paying the SLIGHTEST attention that W was going to go to war with Iraq. You can deny this until you are blue, you will convince NO ONE who was watching the events unfold in late 2002. You know and I know that Kerry voted for that resolution because he was AFRAID NOT TO POLITICALLY, and that that very vote is now haunting him and preventing him, as it did in 2004, from having a solid foundation for opposing the war.

LEADERS have to make the occasional unpopular stand, a stand that could be risky for their political health. Since you are the Kerry expert, please tell me of a time when he did such in the last 5 years (during his presidential aspiration period).

[Vektor]

126. Finally! You defeated yourself. Will you go away now?

Kerry did nothing?

HAH! Incorrect opinion, no facts involved, and clearly coming from someone who has no fucking clue about John Kerry.

I hate to break this to you, but it's pretty well known in most informed circles that Kerry not only did not "do nothing" but is still very actively involved in not "doing nothing" regarding election fraud. If you opened your fucking eyes and actually looked into Kerry's involvement in the lawsuits in Ohio, as well as his work in the Senate on election reform, instead of spewing right wing smut all over this board to feed a childish agenda, then you might know that.

Public knowledge of ACTUAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION Kerry has co-sponsored (not just the grandstanding, bloviating "fighting without a grain of evidence to stand on on Nov. 3rd" bullshit so many advocate without realizing how stupid and pointless that would have been):

Election Integrity Legislation John Kerry co-sponsored in 109th Congress


S.195 : A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (13) Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Latest Major Action: 3/9/2005 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.

S.391 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (5) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.450 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (6) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.1975 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Looky here:

"What did JK do? As far as I can tell, NOTHING."

Again, we are on the bus to Crazytown passing through a little community called Sendero'sOpinionLand. If you are wishing that anybody is going to buy "as far as I can tell" as a fact, then you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.


How easy do you want to make this for us?

[ProSense]

127. Saying BS does not change the facts! Not one link in your post!

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf


Conceding wasn't popular, but it was wise.

Voting for the authorization wasn't popular to some, but it clearly laid out the criteria that Bush violated. IMO, Bush would have gone to war anyway.


Leadership is also the pressing for the DSM inquiry, calling for withdrawal from Iraq, initiating inquiries into port security and response to Katrina, and leading the Alito filibuster. But you have to pay attention instead of yelling bullshit because you don't want to acknowledge the facts.


Like I said, everthing you post is opinion.

[sendero]

136. And every thing you post..

...is an opinion and anyone who thinks Kerry was "wise" for rolling over and taking it, well their opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit to me.

KERRY ROLLED OVER BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY THINKING ABOUT 2008 and too worried about being called a sore-loserman. That's my opinion. It's either that or he's a spineless weasel. You pick. Either way he's no Democratic hero and he never will be.

Did you see the speech Gore gave back in January? At least Gore finally gets is, JK never will.

[ProSense]

139. I didn't write the legislation, file the lawsuits, etc. Silly opinion! n/t

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

143. Thanks!

and to think I wasn't even trying to be!

[Vektor]

133. Ah! The faux sympathy is so moving!

That makes 2 of 2 witless haters on the scene. Ol' Sendie must have known he got his ass handed to him and found his brain twin to come bail him out.

So much for not having a prayer of having it work since our original hater left when the truth fell down on him.

So the truth comes out. Somebody has a problem with all the "Greatest Kerry Threads."

Sounds like a good ol' fashioned case of "the envy".

Typical Kerry basher arriving on the scene to attack:


Note the diminutive man parts. Typical.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

135. Yet here you are like a swarm of locust. He's relevant, admit it. n/t

[mtnsnake]

142. Amazing how I didn't even have to mention any names, isn't it

The exact 3 people I was talking about to sendero came out and showed their colors at the clap of a wing.

BTW, when I say "the exact 3 people I was talking about", I'd put you at the bottom of that list. Take that as a compliment, if you will.

[ProSense]

144. Amazing that you showed up in this thread. Reread the OP. n/t

[karynnj]

138. Opinion can be wrong without being dishonest

I believe that you are honest in your expressed dislike of Kerry. But you never back any of your vague criticisms with actual substance. With no substance, your complaints are just whining, but as there is no substance - there are no facts that can be labeled either true or false. The big question is why you feel the need to repeat these contentless attacks.

Who are you an agent for?

[Vektor]

112. Ooooh!

SO TOUGH.

Ok. allow me to begin by snagging a little quote from your "all caps" meltdown.

"HIS CAMPAIGN MADE SO MANY MISTAKES, AND HE IS SO UTTERLY UNABLE TO CONNECT WITH THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IT IS PATHETIC."

While this is a remedial concept we're dealing with here, saying something is a mistake, or that someone "cannot connect" is hardly "factual information."

It's YOUR LAME OPINION - based on the sad fact that YOU cannot connect with a man of his superior intellect.

Millions connected with him. Sorry you missed the boat.

After that brilliant assessment of Kerry's abilities, you added this stunning bit of verbiage:

"DUH DUH FUCKING DUH."

That really doesn't require further exploration. It is what it is.

So, is that "putting up" enough for you, or do you require further humiliation this evening?

[wisteria]

115. Actually, it all seems to be just your misinformed opinions. n/t

[Vektor]

117. But if they are in all caps,

they must be true! Just ask any freeper!

:eyes:

[sendero]

121. Ok..

... point out where I am misinformed. You can't, because I'm not. Nice try.

[Vektor]

123. And nice try back at ya!

Everyone knows it is circular, nonsensical logic to launch an opinion, declare it fact when it is clearly not, then demand somebody prove your "fact" is incorrect.

Because, you see, no "fact" exists.

However, nice attempt at the proper use of a red herring. The original question was not "how am I misinformed?" it was "how is anything I have said not factually correct?" Congratulations, you just failed pitifully at the ol' bait and switch.

It has already been successfully pointed out by a handful of us where you were not "factually correct" but in fact, were only offering an opinion.

Sorry, you cannot demand someone point out how your nonexistent fact is wrong, and then before anyone even responds say "you can't, I'm not (wrong), nice try."

Do you realize you just had a one sided argument with yourself? It's like grammatical masturbation.

[wisteria]

113. That is fine if you will also offer the say counterpoints in the Gore,

Feingold, Clinton and Clark, Dean, Bayh, Warner,Edwards, Vilchak and Biden threads. It seems Kerry is the only one singled out for special bashing. Please don't discriminate- spread the bashing around-oh, I'm sorry, the counterpoints around. Surely, all of those I named are not perfect either.

[Vektor]

116. But Kerry...

is the one who is well known to have the largest, most legendary "you know what"...



And therein lies the burn for most of them.

[blm]

146. I was being general, not specific to you but what you posted.

And if I would relent on the Kerry defense posts if there weren't so many DISINFORMATION posts put up by all those people who just don't care about the accuracy of their accusations.

Why should I let lies stand? How does that serve this country or Democrats?

[goodhue]

62. Two years too late

But better late than never

[Vektor]

68. Right on time!

The arrival of the frothing bashers, that is!

As for Kerry - right on. He never ceases to get the bots' panties in a bunch every time he speaks.

Love it.

[zulchzulu]

90. Talking with John Nichols (Nation) over some coffee...

I go to a local cafe to get coffee in the afternoon and John is usually there writing for either the Nation, the Cap Times or is on his cell phone in the entry on some radio station doing an interview. He is always open to talking to me if he's not swamped or too busy. John is The Man.

Anyway, he is really proud of Kerry over the last months and is a big fan. He admitted to me that he was more of an Edwards fan all while he watched me table for Kerry at different venues around town.

Put it this way. Kerry is delivering on what he has always done over the many years he has been on our side. To hell with those that think he's "boring" or "long-winded"...or worse...those that chortle the Rovian horseshit about him...that is tiresome, predictable, lazy, uninformed nonsense.

For those that mindlessly or sheepishly diss Kerry, watch and learn. He is on your side.

[wisteria]

119. Good words, he is on our side. ! Thank you! n/t

[bdamomma]

125. we need

all the support from whatever democratic senator right now, as long as it is not Liebermann.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

128. I hope Russ is his running mate

guess what Feingold brings to the table? Only the finest prize of all, libery and a legacy of freedom for our children.

[katinmn]

145. Glad he is speaking out clearly. It's never too late!

And I hope others break ranks, too. They will be defying leadership, though.

[Missy Vixen]

147. Locking

Lock was requested. Thank you.

Julie