Kerry: I'm prepared to kick Swift Boat's ass

[Human Torch]

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) doesn't believe that Hillary Clinton has the inside track on the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and says he would vigorously defend himself against new attacks by the Swift Boat team, according to an interview with The Examiner.

"I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other," said Kerry, in a strong hint that he intends to run for president once again.

In response to wide talk of Sen. Clinton (D-NY) being the favorite for the Democrats in 2008, Kerry says, "I don’t buy it. ... I don’t care what the dominant, conventional wisdom is today; it will not be the dominant, conventional wisdom in a year."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_Im_prepared_to_kick_Swift_0914.html

[Fridays Child]

1. I like his attitude.

I hope he backs it up with action.

[az chela]

22. where the hell was he when he ran last time and won???

He walked away and let bush have the presidency.I was sick and depressed for months.I campaigned for him and John Edwards and when he walked away with out a fight I was devastated!!!!!

[Fridays Child]

25. Exactly. Should we believe him, this time around?

[BlueIris]

28. I beg of you--give it up.

These kinds of posts are beyond tiresome at this late date. Assuming this is genuine and not from some pathetic Free Republic leech--stop wasting this much energy demonizing a past decision of Kerry's you clearly know nothing about. Or, go research what actually happened and the positive changes it facilitated if you want--so you can stop reacting so childishless, exhausting yourself and taking up bandwidth on this board. Learn about it, then let it go.

[Raster]

70. Iris: tiresome to you perhaps. Those who do not learn from history

are doomed to repeat it. And girlfriend you paint with a damned broad brush. And speaking of taking up bandwidth...

[politicasista]

150. How do you know that?

Kerry or any Dem hasn't learned from history? Who are you supporting?

[Raster]

315. I am supporting with all my heart and soul the person that the

Democratic Party selects as their nominee for the office of President of the United States. Personally, I would love to see someone in the Paul Wellstone-meets Barry Goldwater--meets JFK mold. Someone bold and brash and beholden to no one. This country is at is most perilous juncture. It is no exaggeration to say that our society could be vastly different--and not for the better--only 30 years from now. Global warming, peak oil, poverty, hunger and epidemic disease are but of few of the elements that comprise our "perfect storm."

Every election cycle the word "change" is thrown about. We need more than just the usual change. We need a complete paradigm shift. Never before has this country strayed so far from its guiding principles. And never before has this country required leadership of exceptional courage and strength.

[MH1]

202. Learning from history?

You may be interested in Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs. Pay particular attention to the chapter about the Swift Liars.

I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like 300 to 12: 300 MSM mentions of the allegations, to 12 mentions of the Kerry team response - which included ads, press conferences, published statements, and so on.

You can pick a different candidate but if they face the same media, they will look like they didn't respond to the attacks, too.

[dionysus]

182. bullShiTe, he caved

and i like kerry a lot, but he folded

[ProSense]

38. Agree he probably won, but the rest is not accurate:

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

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

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

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[blm]

60. Surrounded by Election lawyers who said they had ZERO legal evidence to

continue in court. The same Dem election lawyers who told Gore he had a legal case to continue.

Read the Princeton study - rigged machines are programmed to erase every trace of tampering. The machines need to be secured BEFORE the voting - and that is something the Dem PARTY needs to do through its party infrastructure - county by county.

[OnionPatch]

79. County by county

and precinct by precinct. That's how they took over and that's how we have to take it back. I pray to God someone out there in DNCland understands that.

[blm]

81. You would think people on this board would realize it, it's so obvious.

But, it's much easier to toss all the blame at the person who worked his ass off to win and won - yet, just like in Florida, the Dem infrastructure couldn't complete the job they were elected and hired to do.

[dionysus]

183. he's a great guy but not God

you've been on a crusade for over a year now

[blm]

197. My crusade is to make sure TRUTH is posted to counter the rampant lies

Why accept the thousands of inaccurate postings directed at Kerry and complain about the hundreds that were posted in defense of the facts?

Seems to me the whole party should be on a crusade to make sure ANY falsehood spread about any Dem is shot down, no matter if it comes from the right, center or left.

You may have missed my posts that shot down lies about Clark, Kucinich, Dean and Edwards, too. If I catch an inaccuracy and don't see a rebuttal based in a fact I am familiar with, I post one.

[MH1]

203. Thank you - every Dem should be fighting for the TRUTH,

no matter which Dem it "helps in '08."

[MH1]

196. I think Howard Dean does get it.

Putting him in charge of DNC was a great move for the party. Of course, some people want him to renege on his promise not to run for president in 2008...but I don't think he'll renege. I think he's a better guy than that. And he also knows he's young enough to run for pres later, AFTER he puts the party on a more effective course.

[exlrrp]

64. Me Too!!!!

I gave more money thn all my previous donations together, campaigned for him in 2 states.
It was his to lose and he lost it. We can blame other people but if he had put up a good fight he would have won.
Not Him! Not Hilary! Someone without baggage that wants to put up a fight (Clark? Feingold?)

[JanusAscending]

180. So was I, or did you think you were the only one?

However, my faith in him has not waivered for an instant, I still respect and admire the man and what he stands for. He WILL be the next nominee for POTUS, and this time he'll be sworn in! In the meantime, he is still MY President, thank you very much!

[Rowdyboy]

2. How I wish he'd been prepared to kick "Swiftboat" ass in 2004....

How different life now might be. Go Clark, Edwards, Warner, Richardson, Gore, and anyone else who might chose to run and the FIGHT when they are FUCKED. Too bad John learned his lesson a few years too late.

[Human Torch]

5. In a different world, we might have had this:

...but it's not a different world. It's a world in which no ass was kicked in 2004. It's a world in which we waited a month for an ass kicking that never happened. I don't believe a second ass-kicking opportunity will be granted in 2008, but I may be wrong. I doubt it.

:patriot:

[Rowdyboy]

11. Trust me on this, you're not wrong.....Kerry won't get a second chance

to fuck up. Democrats want to win and he really doesn't have what it takes.

I think John Kerry makes a pretty decent senator from Massachusetts (other than his pro-war votes) but thats pretty much stretching his limits to the max. He's not presidential material. He let bottom feeding scum suckers (ie the "swiftboaters") derail him in 2004 with little or no protest. Then he let Ohio be stolen with no protest.

This is not the person I want representing my party in 2008. It's time to fight back and Kerry apparently doesn't know how.

[Blackthorn]

21. Word.

He folded quicker than Superman on laundry day. It boggles the mind people still support him and want him to run again. What the proverb about doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome?

[Rowdyboy]

23. I'm pretty certain it was Albert Einstein....

"Insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing."
-Albert Einstein

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/presentation/edlite-slide007.html

I think the source is pretty solid.

And the bastard Kerry (who I gave money to, worked for, and voted for) did "fold quicker than Superman on laundry day". Thanks for putting it so bluntly. I will never forgive or forget the nightmare that prematurely caving in November 2004 brought us. What a smuck.

[Blackthorn]

44. It needs to be put bluntly.

Let me spell it out.

JOHN KERRY IS A SHILL. Kerry's job was to lose the election. That's why he never defended himself against the bullshit Swiftboat rubbish. That's why he conceded election night. That's why he never fought to ensure there was a clean vote.

Bush is Skull and Bones. Kerry is Skull and Bones.

Research the group. That is their one and only loyalty. Not to any party or, heaven forbid, the people of the United States.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Blackthorn]

51. Obviously you didn't research Skull and Bones before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_bones

At any rate, before even considering your argument, the very fact that you end on "or, more likely, a RW shill" clearly shows your character. How close minded of you to assume that anyone with a different opinion to your own is automatically the enemy. I mean, someone on a progressive website calling someone excercising free speech a fucking RW shill. I am as offended as I have ever been on this website.

By claiming no "rational" person could believe it, you are not just calling me out, but a number of other people on this board. Namely the person I was responding too.

I have outlined why I believe John Kerry to be nothing but a shill. You have outlined nothing to refute that. You wrote a paragraph that was based entirely on what Kerry SAID, not DID, and then ended with a personal attack. Nice work.

[ProSense]

54. You must be kidding!

Anyone who believes this had anything to do with the election is clueless or a RW shill.

That is my opinion, I believe the election was rife with fraud. There may be no way of knowing for sure if Kerry won or lost. To conclude after the election that because he you perceive that he didn't challenge the results, he threw the election because of his involvement in a fraternity 40 years ago is completely illogical. That is my opinion.

[calmblueocean]

63. What I find frustrating

is that the conspiracy theorists who propose wacky theories like this do a lot of damage to legitimate causes, like voting fraud.

[karynnj]

68. What Kerry did:

You speak of an organization he was tapped for in college - that he joined.

You ignore:

- Kerry had the guts to take on Nixon over VN . That is well documented - so he opposed many S&B people on this

- Kerry investigated the Contras and drug running - most of what's known wouldn't be if Kerry hadn't done this. The reporters would be even more convinvingly described as "conspiracy nuts. GHWB was the head of this - Gee, why did Kerry do this.

-Kerry went after BCCI and continued to push the case till Morenthau took it. Lots of S&B people behind that

These add up to at least a decade of Senator Kerry's life - each put his political career at risk. This leads me to believe that:

-Either the conspiracy nonsense around S&B is over inflated hype and it is really just a very very high level "old boys" club.
-Kerry, while in Vietnam changed and rejected the lies

Either way - look at what the man has PROVABLY done - he is not on their side.

[ProSense]

46. And to your other point, get your facts straight!

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

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

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

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[Blackthorn]

53. So what do you make of his concession on election night?

I mean, if he genuinely wanted a fair count, why give up at the start?

[ProSense]

55. He didn't

concede on election night! It the following day, and the facts about his actions thereafter are posted.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

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

[Blackthorn]

307. Oh, so the country I'm from negates my opinion.

And what the fuck is this interrogation? What's my stake? I don't wanna see the fucking planet ruined by your goddamn government.

I think I'll just resign myself to the fact that people here are not ready to fight the real enemy, and are comfortable creating a fantasy world wherein a Democratic President will make it all good again.

Forgive me for trying to inject a new point of view into proceedings. I'm sorry you aren't prepared to even listen.

[babylonsister]

320. For all your criticism, you blather on but don't respond to

one question. I'd listen if you had something valid to say.
And this is a new point of view? Yawn; sounds like more of
the same to me.

[ProSense]

37. He let them "derail" him, but didn't "protest" when he won?

[blm]

61. You're pointing to Dem PARTY failures, not Kerry's - Kerry won. DNC was

too weak and party infrastructure too collapsed to get the votes secured BEFORE the voting. And their spokespeople were ill-prepared for the daily appearances.

The left media was SWAMPED daily by the RW message machine.

[Raster]

72. Hear! Hear! It's time for someone who will give whatever it takes to win

[ProSense]

73. That's what primaries are for! See you on the other side!

Who are you supporting? If Kerry runs, he is in a excellent position, better than most!

[Raster]

74. If Kerry is again selected as the Democratic candidate for president, I

will support him with all my heart and soul. Whatever it takes. What I want from Kerry is the same. What I also want from Kerry is an explanation, in his own words, why he conceded. Not from you, not from a legal mouthpiece. John Kerry needs to tell me and millions of Americans why he should be given a second chance. Mince no words, make no dodges. Tell me John, straight up, why is bush* living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and not you? And what lengths are you prepared to go to remedy this situation?

ProSense, I do not question your motives, your conviction nor your integrity. So please, don't react as if I did. The burden of proof of conviction is on John Kerry. Let him speak.

[ProSense]

75. That's elected! There are

audio clips and more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828831&mesg_id=2829005

[davidwparker]

17. I like all these but Richardson. He should have helped with voter

recount in 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Wes Clark is one of the Vets heading Vote Vet...who currently have the

ad out kicking Allen's butt and dogged out Lieberman last week!
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=45

Read the list of who is involved at the link.....and you will see some pretty tough MF Democrats!

[silverojo]

47. Amen to that!

If he seriously believes he has a chance in 2008, then he needs medication. Badly.

[ProSense]

49. Funny how

Kerry is still getting a lot of attention, receiving a lot of support and continuing to fight, despite your perception.

[napi21]

3. This wasposted earlier today. My answer stays the same.

You had your chance John, and you blew it! I won't give you a second chance.

[eleny]

4. Well how about this....

Every Dem candidate kicks ass as needed. That would make one hell of an election season. So I'm glad he's feeling like this and letting the cons know that he's ready to do battle - literally. I'm glad to hear this kind of talk. It's what we've been waiting for.

[napi21]

7. Oh how I wish they ALL would Kick ass!

I'm not a defeatist, butwhere would this sudden backbone come from? There of so few Dems who actually DO kick back, I could cry! I hope you're right andI'm wrong but preasantly surprised!

[eleny]

9. We agree

I want to ask him where the hell his spine was when they swift boated him. We'll see if he's for real. But maybe he finally woke up and smelled the coffee.

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. Yawn

I'd hate to be your favorite sports team, never giving them a second chance, they might as well not even show up on the field.

Geez were you against Kerry before you were for him. I think I can answer that.

[Rowdyboy]

24. Richhardson is CERTAINLY not the best of the lot, but he's okay.....

Barely. I don't think it'll be a problem because I honestly don't think he'll run unless he's invited onto the nominee's ticket.

I give as many chances as it takes to Democrats. The worst Democrat is HEADS ABOVE Lincoln Chafee and his band of "pretend-moderate" Rethugs. Fuck them any everyone who believe in "liberal Republicans". What a joke. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have no more pity on the weak and handicapped than Tom Coburn and John Cornyn. The whole fucking Republican party is evil and should be banned.

[ProSense]

35. Yes, Richardson certainly is new blood!

[pecwae]

57. I agree with you,

as I posted on another thread. I'm not holding a grudge against him, I feel history need not repeat itself.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Kerry is the only one with the means to stop Hillary

Do you want Hillary?

As to Wes Clark, great guy, but he is still lingering in single digits and we will need a stop-Hillary candidate PDQ.

[11cents]

6. At the convention he told them to "bring it on."

Jesus. This guy's got zero self-awareness. I'm convinced that the Senate turns humans into holograms.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. To bad

you let the MSM and pundits rule your thinking in '04. I suppose Kerry was your number 1 candidate in '04, NOT.

Please tell me what other hologram brought millions out to the streets to see him (hologram) speak?

[11cents]

16. Any Democratic candidate for president would bring out big crowds.

Ditto any GOP candidate for president. Most people who vote are going to back one or the either. Get it? It's not necessarily their overwhelming appeal that does it.

Welcome to the two-party system.

But you've discerned my horrible secret. I didn't find John Kerry the very most attractive of the available primary candidates. This time, of course, when Kerry says he'll fight effectively I'll believe him. Learning from experience is for eggheads.

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. So

you were against him before you were for him. So would you give your candidate another chance? Or will you blame that on Kerry too?

[Phredicles]

8. Just one freakin' time I wish our candidate would locate a backbone

and grow a pair BEFORE the election! :grr: :grr: :grr:

[CarlVK]

13. you're not alone in that lament.

Day late and a dollar short.....

[ProSense]

36. Neat smilies!

Did you figure out he didn't have a pair before the election or after?

[ChipsAhoy]

249. Grow a pair, indeed!!

The clock is running out. :(

[arikara]

12. Poor John

He brings to mind the good ol school daze... going home after being picked on and thinking up the perfect come-back a day or 2 later.

And ran out of money, that's another likely story. More like he cut and run to steal the repukes favorite saying.

[Rowdyboy]

14. He's a good man, but a horrendous candidate....I wish he'd just go away...

Its time for new blood to represent the Democratic party. I'm over the Bushes, Doles, Nixons, Kennedys and Clintons. Its a freaking democracy-lets have non-royals run things for awhile.

[CarlVK]

90. I like him speaking up, but he needs to give up on preeminence

in the way he had it in 2004. I've said this several places on the forum but it bears repeating: People like Howard Dean need to be given a real clear shot at these Rethugs. They have the stuff, now more than ever.

[OzarkDem]

115. Ditto n/t

[ProSense]

34. Are you talking about John O'Neill? n/t

[davidwparker]

15. What prevents him from doing it NOW! Start the lawsuit and get it

out in the open before 2008. Just talk.

[Bluestar]

20. Sorry, JK, you had your chance

Why should we believe you? You also said "every vote gets counted and every vote counts". How do we know you won't chicken out again?

[Ignacio Upton]

26. Kerry 2004 = William Jennings Bryan in 1900 & 1908

Or Adlai Stevenson in 1956.

Unless it's someone like Al Gore who won the popular vote and would have won Florida's electoral votes if not for the fraud, then I don't support running someone who's already been defined to the point that it will be next to impossible to change voter's minds about him. Case in point, most voters already know who Hillary is, and she will have little room for movement upword. There are just too many people who will vote for a ham sandwich over her, both on the right and on the left.

Also, Kerry only did as well as he did because of the "Anybody but Bush" principle that kept us united in 2004. If someone like John McCain gets nominated in 2008, then there will be less enthusiasm for someone like Kerry in terms of how swing voters will go.

I'd rather have someone who's unknown to the public and hasn't been smeared by Rove yet, like Mark Warner or Wes Clark (although the right-wing has a whole list of talkingpoints ready to use against Clark, included the lie that he was "fired" and that he "almost started WWIII" while with Warner their only "attack" is a weak one involving passage of a tax increase that received bipartisan support in the state legislature. But then again, I say that as a would-be Warner supporter, if he runs.

[Mass]

52. there is ABX in every election. Polls show that Kerry did as well as

Clinton with the ABX vote and got many, many votes from people who liked him.

I definitively dont want somebody unknown to the public, particularly against somebody who has the popularity of a McCain or Guliani who are well known. They would have to learn how to make a national campaign, become known to the public, ... Too much time lost.

We have two recent nominees who have both gotten more votes than any other Democrats. Let's choose one of them as our nominee and dont rewrite everything at each cycle. This is one of the reason we lose each election. We dont recognize that people want to see familiar faces. We're way too interested in circular firesquads.

BTW, Warner and Clark will be smeared the minute they look like serious candidates. Dont think they wont or you are ready for a big surprise. Not only Warner, every candidate. We need big name Democrats to unite around the candidate, something that was really missing in 04 where some people were a lot more interested promoting their 08 strategy,

[zulchzulu]

100. Will you stop with the Junior High "historical analysis" tripe...

Kerry is not Stevenson, nor is he William Jennings Bryan. If you would like to amuse me, tell me the similarities.

Your "analysis" proves that Google can make you "look" smart, but it doesn't mean you "are" smart.

[nosmokes]

27. uh- huh. i guess *now* he's ready to fight for the ohio vote recount too?

can you say a dy late and a dollar short boys and girls? i knew you could!

[mntleo2]

31. And When He Steps In And Speaks Up ...

...then perhaps I will consider voting for him. Until then, if he is more afraid of appearing a "sore loser" than he was defending the people's sacred right to vote, not a good sign. No I cannot "give it up". The right to vote is too precious. I think this was far more important than being so afraid of what he "looked" like than making sure everyone's vote counted. Not a good sign for the courageous behavior needed for a true leader IMO. Maybe I am odd here but when I see a person who has stood up and told the truth and LIVES what he says, then I will support them.

As for Clinton, she is no better. I do not have the confidence she is doing much more than keeping her ear to the ground to make sure every move is politically correct and with her running with the DLC, well I don't think the DLC's worship of Rethuglican lite is the answer either.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[ProSense]

39. Not exaclty! People tend not to read the whole thread, so here:

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

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

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

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[karynnj]

69. Do you understand that the problem is VOTES NOT CAST

rather than votes not counted.

[zulchzulu]

125. Guess what . . . John Conyers COMPLETELY disagrees with you

Let's see you explain this away...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth.

That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[HuffleClaw]

29. kinda late methinks

idiot

[carpetbagger]

30. Quick, Sherman...to the Wayback Machine.

Uh, John, the person who can win the 2008 election is the one who will coordinate the following message up and down through the party...

"John McCain's a doublespeaking phony and it's time to repair the damage Bush did to the bridge to the 21st Century".

You don't have it in you to say the first part, and your buddy will eat you alive.

[CarbonDate]

32. In a related story...

...the Seahawks are ready to kick some Steeler ass. WTF, John?

[paulk]

215. actually, the Seahawks did kick the Steeler's ass

but, the referees gave the game to Pittsburgh

Kind of like the 2004 election...

[Alpharetta]

40. Sorry, but he should have stood with Robert Byrd

When so many of us knew the Iraq War was a stupid-a$$ idea, he had his chance to show some courage. It would have been the perfect contrarian move to the me-too spinelessness all the Dems who went along with it.

Perfect because he would have been correct
morally
on the terrorism fight
on Iraq
on world affairs
on military strategy
on US priorities.

Robert Byrd said we didn't know what we were getting into. He was right.

[ProSense]

41. This is Bush's illegal war, the spineless Dems argument is nonsense!

Robert Byrd should never have voted for Alito! n/t

[Alpharetta]

42. The war is not negotiable

Only a genuine candidate will succeed. The war is the dividing line between those who are willing to go along with the President's mistakes and those who are willing to stick their neck out and stop us from flushing our country down the commode.

I'm not here to play tit-for-tat about Byrd/Alito, you'll have to play with yourself on that.

[ProSense]

43. The war is illegal and not negotiable, it's Bush's war!

No one went along with Bush. That is simply nonsense. This is Bush's war. It is not negotiable. Play up RW talking points if you want, but do it by yourself!

[TayTay]

48. Really? Too bad that argument didn't get any votes in '04

Because we need votes in order to change the direction of the country.

Let me know how it works out with when only those who agreed with you at the beginning are there with you at the end. The rest of us are working to change the minds of those who don't agree with us, because we need them in order to change the direction of the county. We need more people, we don't need liberal purity tests imposed on those who are starting to change their minds in this direction. That is a guaranteed way to ensure that things stay as they are.

[Mass]

50. And Byrd should have stayed with in rejecting Alito and Roberts,

and voting against the FMS and quite a few other things. Guess he was spineless as well.

[leesa]

56. Yeah. Whatever.

[cleveramerican]

59. Sorry John

the moment has passed

[doc03]

62. Sorry, but John Kerry has been tagged as a

Flip-Flopper and I think rightly so. It's a little too late to fire back at the Swift Boaters now.

[ProSense]

65. "It's a little too late to fire back at the Swift Boaters now."

Are you joking?

This comment: "Flip-Flopper and I think rightly"

Since this was RW spin during the campaign, when did you decide this was done "rightly"?

Maybe the flip-floppers are the people who voted (who knows for whom) and are now spewing RW talking points!

[doc03]

78. First of all I voted for John Kerry since that was the

man the media selected as our candidate. John Kerry fought in Vietnam then came home and opposed the war, he may have been right in doing so but the Vietnam veterans I know feel he betrayed them and will never vote for him. He made that comment about voting for the war before he voted against it. After he threw in the towel he now feels the election was stolen from him in Ohio. He never answered the accusations made by the swift boaters, now two years latter he is going to fight back next time. Why didn't he use the $14 million he had left over to fight back then ($50 was my money).

[ProSense]

83. The Vietnam thing is definitely RW. On the others: Never?

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&.

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

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

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

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

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[enough already]

66. Too late

Next....

[hippiechick]

67. "New" attacks ? He hasn't 'kicked their ass' over the OLD ones !

:eyes: Give it up, Senator. Please.

[ProSense]

71. He did, and he will continue doing it!

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

Kerry defends war record

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry Campaign responses: August 20-August 26


Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

[CarlVK]

86. If you want a real "ass kicker", call in Howard Dean.

[ProSense]

97. Yeah!

I like Dean, but I like Kerry better. Dean handled the scream, Kerry handled the Swift Liars and the media shill. They both learn, huh?

[CarlVK]

101. They both have their plus points, but the reason I prefer Dean is

I think he tackles things immediately. John Kerry has a disturbing tendency to be very untimely on his defense. Or even his offense.

I honor John Kery's service to this country. I simply don't believe at this time that he'd be a good candidate to float for the presidency. For a myriad of reasons, mostly not his fault, he's now damaged goods.

[ProSense]

106. Don't agree

Kerry did handle the Swift Liars immediately. Dean gets himself into tights spots sometimes.

[CarlVK]

116. Dean got in trouble for telling the truth. Kerry raises a 2 yr old issue!

To me, there is a big difference.

[ProSense]

119. No,

Dean got in trouble more than once, and since the election. He wound up apologizing for two incidents!

[CarlVK]

131. Dean gets in trouble for telling the truth. I do not find that a vice.

Twice, three, or four times. Truth is a commodity in short supply lately, as the Iraq War debacle will show you.

[ProSense]

138. It had nothing to do with truth!

Otherwise he wouldn't have apologized! Why would you assume Dean would apologize for telling the truth!

[CarlVK]

142. He apologized for the way he came off, but I dont ever recall

Dean apologizing for telling a lie. If you can show me such an incident, I'd be much obliged.

[ProSense]

146. Not a lie,

a comment! For a Dean supporter, I'm suprised you're not aware of these incidents!

[CarlVK]

155. But when did Dean not tell the truth? I'm wondering why you dont answer

That's what I originally asked you. Not about a comment, or about an opinion.

[zulchzulu]

162. Are you a "Deaniac"?

I like Howard, met him, shook his hand, videotaped him...

...but he did lose in 2004...


.... get over it ....

[CarlVK]

164. What's a Deaniac? Is that like a Kerrybot, but different?

See how name calling doesn't get us anywhere? How about we not?

[zulchzulu]

166. Neener neener neener...

Good night.

[CarlVK]

168. See what nonsense name calling is?

Goodnight. I hope you are in a better mood tomorrow.

[ProSense]

167. Not an untruth. Do you

even remember Dean's apology a few months back?

[CarlVK]

169. It was no apology for telling a lie. Dean doesn't tell lies.

So, what's your point? That sometimes politicos say something that they regretted? Given. I don't see how this is an adequate response to my question asking you when Dean ever told a lie.

[ProSense]

175. Pretty much!

My original point (not one mention of the word lie):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828831&mesg_id=2830470

[CarlVK]

177. So back to my point - Dean tells the truth. Thats not a vice.

And he does it forcefully and doesnt throw in the towel easily. I see that as three positive points for a good candidate.

[ProSense]

179. One thing I would like to know:

Is Dean running?

[CarlVK]

221. I sincerely hope he does. I don't think Sen. Kerry is running now is he?

[CarolNYC]

191. I have to agree with this....

I'm not sure exactly what incidents Howard apologized for but one of the things that really bugged me when all of these Dems were backing away from Dean when he'd said a couple of controversial...but true....things was that none of them said, 'OK, maybe he didn't use the words or tone that I would have used, but show me where what he said isn't true or accurate.' I was practically pulling my hair out at the Dems backing away from someone telling blunt truths.

Carl, I know you detest all things Clark, but I quite like the General, and so I was so pleased to see him, unprompted, bring up Dean in a speech at the time, saying he was PROUD of Howard Dean. I just wish more Dems had backed him up like that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people say they want honesty but I think it really frightens them. You'll disagree, of course, but I thought that Howard and Wes and Dennis were all a little too blunt and honest for the masses...unfortunately.

[MH1]

204. He did say one thing at least that was false, it was a stereotype

I can't remember it exactly but I cringed when I heard it, he said something referring to republicans being the party of white...fundamentalists? Like I said I don't remember the exact words, but when I heard it I cringed because it really is false for many republicans.

I think that is one he apologized for, and I think it was right for him to do so, because his statement was too broad brush and was insulting to a lot of people, some of who we could and should be winning over to vote Dem this year.

I like Howard though, and I like the way he talks most of the time. I think in today's media climate it is tough for any Democrat. If you are too nice, you are branded a wuss; if you speak out strongly, they will find something - anything - and turn it into something that you did wrong, and blare their inignation over the airwaves 24x7.

(And, I could never be a politician myself, cuz I'd have to apologize to somebody every other day.)

[CarlVK]

224. It was broadbrush, but true.

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the current Republican party draws much more of the white/christian/fundamentalist than does the Democratic party. Dr. Dean may have phrased it poorly (which, arg, he has done on more than one occassion) but he certainly wasn't telling a lie.

[ProSense]

227. Dean gets himself into tights spots sometimes.

That is what I said several post back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828831&mesg_id=2830470

[CarlVK]

232. I'd rather have that than a lightening quick consession.

Which is one of the complaints many had about the Kerry campaign.

[ProSense]

234. At least you acknowledge Kerry won

I'm not so sure how getting into tight spots would translate into a win, but who knows!

[CarlVK]

240. Getting into tight spots is part of the job description.

I'm not sure why it's such a thing to wring ones hands over.

[CarolNYC]

239. But I don't actually think what he said was inaccurate....

It may have been insulting to some but, if I recall correctly, there were statistics floating around at the time that proved what he said was actually true....which is why I said it annoyed me that those who were asked about what he said didn't say something like, well, I wouldn't have put it that way myself but show me where what he said is not true....Instead, they were backing away and distancing themselves as much as possible from their own chairman. You can bet the Republicans wouldn't have been backing away from their GOP chairman's statements like that, no matter how outrageous....

As for your comments about the media climate and being a politician, I'm right there with you....yeah, I'd be apologizing twice a day, I think. :)

[CarlVK]

222. You got that right. Honesty offends like nothing else.

And therein lies our dilemma because TRUTH is our dear friend in the upcoming elections. The truth about what all these rethug jackasses have been doing is our greatest weapon.

How do we use it without scaring off the voters? I don't have an answer for that.

And for the record, I really don't despise Mr. Clark. He's a good guy. I simply think we have better candidates.

[CarolNYC]

242. "Mr. Clark's" a good guy

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I was confused by your characterization of General Clark in that other thread as a neocon, part of the military-industrial complex, who was eager to use force to spread western style democracy all over the world. Those aren't exactly what I consider the qualities of a "good man", so you can see where I might have been confused, no? :shrug:

I agree with your statements about the truth, though....

[ProSense]

247. Stereotypes hurt people too! n/t

[midnight]

201. Why is that Howard Dean can be so effective, and not put up

with nonsense. Even when they were swift boating him. He gave it right back to them. The news reporters were harassing a women, and he wouldn't let it go on. His enthusiasm for, a big shout out, about moving ahead gets him reduced to a nut. This did not stop him though, and he showed his spirit by coming back and leading the Dem's. He is great.

[CarlVK]

233. The Dean Spirit is spreading and I couldn't be happier about that.

You are right, instead of caving and disappearing, he just gets back up and figures out how to fight again. When he was introduced into Democratic Party leadership I was overjoyed, it was like a Phoenix from the ashes of 2004. This spirit of principles and fight is now infecting the party at its grassroots level, getting people to think in new ways, and adapt for the larger war on republican terror.

Thank you for your post.

[CarolNYC]

272. You know, I'm glad you have all of this research....

but here's what I remember about the Kerry campaign and the Swift Boat attacks....Fairly late in the campaign, General Clark appeared with Kerry at some big rally. He introduced the Senator and said something pretty darn blunt about the nerve of Bush insulting the honor of real combat veterans...something that suggested that Bush was tied in with the Swift Boat attacks. The crowd loved it. The internet Clarkies loved it. Senator Kerry, onstage with Wes, didn't seem to mind or be uncomfortable when Wes said those things....Yet, almost before Clark had left the stage, the Kerry campaign was backing away from the remarks. There was a statement from a campaign spokesman who, when confronted by someone from the media about the remarks, said something about the General being obviously very upset but he doesn't speak for the Senator or the campaign.

It seems that the Kerry defenders think that no criticism of or frustration with the Kerry campaign by anyone who supported another candidate in the primaries can be anything but sour grapes because their candidate didn't win so, no doubt, you will not understand or believe how frustrating that was for Clarkies...not just because the campaign hung the General out there on his own, but because we really really wanted Kerry to win and really really wanted him to go after Bush on this with both guns blazing....

That said, we better be winning at least one house of Congress back this year and whoever runs in '08 better run a tough, smart, strong campaign because the Republicans are certainly not going to hold back and, unless something drastically changes, they are going to have the media right there to help them.

[ProSense]

276. I know of the event:

But a statement was issued the next day, then there is the video of Kerry on the Aug. 19.

On
Aug. 17, 2004> the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on <[br /|Aug. 18, 2004>:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

Fact is, every step the Kerry campaign took (and he probably could have taken more), was countered by the media blitz.

[CarolNYC]

283. I may be misunderstanding you....

but the event I'm thinking of wasn't a press conference but an outdoor rally....As far as I remember, there was no backing away from the statements at this press conference. I think this was fully backed by the campaign, right?

[ProSense]

285. Then I cited the wrong event, but clearly the Kerry campaign

did not refrain from pointing to Bush involvement.

[CarolNYC]

289. Well, they were lightning quick to back away from Clark's statement on it

If I had the time, I'd try to find a link to the story or at least figure out what the rally was...Maybe later...

[ProSense]

290. OK, I'll be interested to read it! n/t

[Totally Committed]

76. Talk about 3 years too late!

Why couldn't he have had this epiphany BEFORE running last time?

It's things like this that drive me absolutely up the wall!

TC

[New Earth]

77. the replies to this thread are pathetic

poor little puppies all lost their mommy again.

[sandnsea]

176. It was JUST LIKE THIS when the swiftliars attacked

DU didn't exactly rally behind the campaign in August 2004 either. We had to fight to get people to pay attention to Jim Rassmann or read the words of William Rood or applaud Max Cleland challenging Bush in Crawford long before we had ever heard of Cindy Sheehan.

No these people were peeing their pants and demanding evidence that what Kerry said was true and often joining in the attack from the right. They didn't help one bit then just like they never help any Democrat now, they don't know how to do anything but whine, bitch and blame.

[zulchzulu]

195. Separating the wheat from the chaff

Reading the threads where the people dissing Kerry have swallowed the Rove Koolaid is amazing to me.

They are clueless about the charges, clueless about when and how the Kerry campaign DID respond to the charges and clueless about the efforts the Kerry team made in post-election efforts.

Perhaps it's the usual tripe you might expect from sore losers whose primary candidate got their ass handed to them...perhaps it's that they are just too lazy to read the information about what really happened...perhaps it's a childish sense of pride not to admit that they are wrong and in the same camp as Freepers...

It's good to see who I would never have on my team when facing Repugs...the first sign of Rovian deflection and lies would convince them like little lemmings that they should just give up and jump off the cliff...

[CarlVK]

244. Below the belt, and totally wrong

to mischaracterize peoples' statements like that. Use that sort of hyperbole on the Freepers. It will go nowhere with me.

[citizen snips]

80. to little too late.

:-(

[AtomicKitten]

82. I'm not impressed.

This will titillate the choir, but I'm afraid his impotence in the face of the Swift Boat Liars the first time around still resonates.

[ProSense]

84. It really wasn't that way!

But I suspect you know that!

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&.

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

I think this is posted two or three times in this thread already.

[AtomicKitten]

91. yeah, it really was that way

I realize you are a member of the choir and want to view this in a protective way but, as a Democratic voter, I was not inspired. I worked for Kerry and supported him, but didn't vote for him in the primary. I had to pretend he was the Kerry that testified before Congress in 1971.

I am entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that he was a terrible candidate. He may be a good Senator and would probably make a good president, but he was an ineffective presidential candidate in a race where he needed to play hardball. His responses to the GOP Wrecking Machine were slow and ineffectual. Clinton could handle those bastards effectively, but Kerry just didn't have the right stuff.

So, I will treat with a certain amount of deference the Kerry fans here at DU, but your impression of the way things went down is much different than the way I experienced it. And I warn you respectfully to confine your cheerleading to those willing to overlook the hype.

[ProSense]

96. Clinton who opted to forgive the Iran Contra crew, remained

silent about the Swift Liars and election fraud, and never uttered a word until the "Path to 9/11" was ready to air, after several books, including one that was a source of information for the movie, characterizing him in the same light were published -- that Clinton?

At least when the Swift Liars appeared Kerry responded on the same day!

What's your impression of that?

[AtomicKitten]

102. there you go

Defelecting blame.

Not buying it, but good try nonethless.

My comments stand.

[ProSense]

109. Deflecting blame? No,

stating the facts. You introduced Clinton into the discussion, so I stated the facts. Did he or didn't he?

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bling bling]

85. Kerry ought to kick his 2004 campaign advisers ass.

The surf/sailboard photo op thing to make him look cool,

The stupid hunting photo op to make him look tough and manly,

The tepid response to the Swiftboaters,

The "I voted for it before I voted against it...." type answers to the media rather than explaining how the rethugs loaded the bills with other things in the fine print that he disagreed with.

The stunning failure to tell America some of the highly impressive things about himself, like the role he played in investigating and shutting down terrorist bank accounts.

The whole overplayed Viet Nam vet angle,

The theme of "hope is on the way" or whatever without clearly explaining what he was going to do that was different from the Republicans. I can't tell you how many people have told me that they never really got what Kerry stood for. He seemed to back down more than stand tall about his beliefs (abortion rights, gay marriage/civil unions, etc.),

His mind-blowing refrain from campaigning toward the middle class and especially to women and to african americans. He seemed to solely be campainging to the swing-voters and to those who were unhappy with Bush.

His decision to just give up on funding ads in some of the states like Missouri. Missouri was NOT a lost cause. Kerry got a lot of votes considering he all but ignored this state. With a little money and effort he could have had a better chance.

------

Unless he stops listening to people who make him look like a flip-flopping dork, the Swiftboaters don't have much to be afraid of in 2008.

It's a shame, because Kerry really is a very intelligent, caring, good citizen and representative. It's my opinion that he ought not run again. Any attempts to do a 180 from the campaign strategies used in 2004 will just make him look disingenuous (if that's a word) and fake.

[ProSense]

93. Nothing in this post is factual

that isn't an opinion:

The surf/sailboard photo op thing to make him look cool,

He is actually a windsurfer. Do you mean that presidents can't have hobbies?

The stupid hunting photo op to make him look tough and manly

He is actually a hunter.

The tepid response to the Swiftboaters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828831&mesg_id=2830369

The "I voted for it before I voted against it...." type answers to the media rather than explaining how the rethugs loaded the bills with other things in the fine print that he disagreed with.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=320

The stunning failure to tell America some of the highly impressive things about himself, like the role he played in investigating and shutting down terrorist bank accounts.

Should have definitely gotten more play:

Kerry came to his worldview over the course of a Senate career that has been, by any legislative standard, a quiet affair. Beginning in the late 80's, Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations investigated and exposed connections between Latin American drug dealers and BCCI, the international bank that was helping to launder drug money. That led to more investigations of arms dealers, money laundering and terrorist financing.

Kerry turned his work on the committee into a book on global crime, titled ''The New War,'' published in 1997. He readily admitted to me that the book ''wasn't exclusively on Al Qaeda''; in fact, it barely mentioned the rise of Islamic extremism. But when I spoke to Kerry in August, he said that many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ei=5090&en=8dcbffeaca117a9a&ex=1255147200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=

But Kerry emphasized the law enforcement aspect of fighting terrorism, which is why everyone is now saying Kerry was right!

The whole overplayed Viet Nam vet angle,

Funny when Kerry gave his "Dissent" speech, everyone claimed he should have play up Vietnam more in 2004!

The theme of "hope is on the way" or whatever without clearly explaining what he was going to do that was different from the Republicans. I can't tell you how many people have told me that they never really got what Kerry stood for. He seemed to back down more than stand tall about his beliefs (abortion rights, gay marriage/civil unions, etc.),

Never happened!

His mind-blowing refrain from campaigning toward the middle class and especially to women and to african americans. He seemed to solely be campainging to the swing-voters and to those who were unhappy with Bush.

Kerry won the woman vote, 2.5 million more AA votes than Gore, and the Independent vote.

His decision to just give up on funding ads in some of the states like Missouri. Missouri was NOT a lost cause. Kerry got a lot of votes considering he all but ignored this state. With a little money and effort he could have had a better chance.

Not accurate:

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

Unless he stops listening to people who make him look like a flip-flopping dork, the Swiftboaters don't have much to be afraid of in 2008.

The Swift Liars are being exposed:

Patriot Project

VoteVets.org

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2826167&mesg_id=2826167

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2826979&mesg_id=2826979

It's a shame, because Kerry really is a very intelligent, caring, good citizen and representative...

Agree, he'd make a great president!

...It's my opinion that he ought not run again. Any attempts to do a 180 from the campaign strategies used in 2004 will just make him look disingenuous (if that's a word) and fake.

He should run! The 180 statement is not accurate:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3486

[wisteria]

127. Wow, this is just fantastic. Excellent work. n/t

[bling bling]

152. You're telling me I'm not accurate, but YOU'RE not accurate.

I am quite concerned with having accurate information so that I don't look like a dope when I post, so I always appreciate it when I'm corrected. I mean that.

However, how can you say that nothing in my post is factual?

For example:

You tell me that I'm wrong about Kerry pulling ads in Missouri. I live in Missouri and I personally called the Kerry campaign office in Kansas City and begged them to ask Kerry's team to change their mind about this. I asked others to also call. Here's a couple of links though:

------

Kerry pulls ads from Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri

“With its burgeoning exurbs and rural areas turning more Republican every day, Missouri cannot be won by Kerry in a close race, some advisers have concluded….”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-22-kerry-pulls-ads_x.htm


Missouri’s Top Political Analyst Surprised by Kerry Pulling Ads from ‘Show Me State’

“It’s surprising because the latest poll in Missouri shows that Kerry has come back within striking distance of Bush,” said Warren, a political science professor and polling expert at Saint Louis University, a Jesuit, Catholic university located in St. Louis.
Although Warren believes the three other states are out of reach for Kerry, Warren says Missouri remains very much in play and will continue to be a critical battleground.
“It would be a strategic mistake to abandon Missouri entirely,” Warren said.

http://www.slu.edu/readstory/more/4727

-------

I did not say that Kerry didn't WIN the women and aa vote. So you aren't proving me wrong there. Kerry didn't do a good job of campaigning to these groups who are a HUGE part of his base. Up until about the last couple of weeks I felt very much like Kerry hadn't done a good job of countering Bush's "security mom" strategy. Here's a link that supports my argument:

Why women are edging toward Bush
"The challenge for Democrats is to get people either refocused on domestic issues or somehow cut into the advantage that Bush seems to have on terrorism, homeland security, and even Iraq," says Carroll. "There's a perception that Kerry has not clearly articulated an alternative position on Iraq."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0923/p01s01-ussc.html

Now you may disagree, but that does not mean that I am necessarily posting bullshit either. It is a perception/strategy issue.

Here's a link to support the lack of campaigning to african americans part of my statement:

Black Power(less)
The decline of black politics in America

That Kerry could get away with so little before the NAACP — essentially offering no substantial policy initiatives that would benefit African-Americans — underscores the grim reality that 50 years after Brown v. the Board of Education, effective black politics in America has utterly bottomed out. No real agenda drives politics beyond having the Democratic candidate show up. One is hard-pressed to hear most blacks voice any enthusiasm for Kerry the way they did when Bill Clinton ran in 1992.

“There’s no message, no organizing aimed at black people,” says Kevin Gray, a former organizer in Jesse Jackson’s two presidential campaigns and Senator Tom Harkin’s former Southern coordinator. “It’s not like Kerry stands for anything; black people are voting against Bush” but not for Kerry.

Gray, who briefly worked for Al Sharpton’s tragicomic presidential campaign in this past year in South Carolina, believes that Kerry has no message or any kind of organizing to deal with the problems faced by black people in America. Nothing beyond “the basic political pabulum that we’ve been hearing for the last 20 years,” Gray reflects.

Put another way, boilerplate liberalism but no legislative initiative. And why would they need one? Democrats know they will suffer no sanctions from disgruntled blacks.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/-black-powerless/9118/

-------

Also, Kerry may really be a wind surfer and may really be a hunter but he brought a camera man along with him to take a picture of him surfing, hunting, and riding a motorcycle as PHOTO OPS, which is what I said. I didn't say that he wasn't those things. My point was it kind of backfired and seemed really transparent that he was trying to look cool and tough, so in essence he ended up looking dorky because it was obvious he was trying so hard to project a certain manly image. Bush the cowboy does the same thing and I think it makes him look dorky too. The difference is that a lot of Americans fell for Bush's cowboy costume. Whereas a lot of people saw Kerry's photo ops as desperate.

Anyway, I'm not going to go through the rest of the post because I'm slow and it takes me a lot of time to comb through articles to find links that back up my statements. Perhaps you were right on a couple of your points. But even if that's the case I don't think it was accurate to state that my "whole" post was factually incorrect.

I appreciate that you are sticking up for Kerry, though. Even though I disagree with your viewpoint, it's good to try and get people to look at facts and information about Kerry that they may not have been aware of. I respect that you support Kerry enough to be willing to bang your head against the wall over and over here trying to get people to see a different point of view. Good luck! :)

[ProSense]

186. Here is more from your link:

Kerry spent about $15 million in the four states, half of it in Missouri, trying to put them in play. It was part of a strategy to stretch the battlefield into GOP territory, from Virginia and North Carolina in the South to Arizona in the Southwest and Nevada in the West.

The fact is he had a presence in the state for almost through the end of September.


The CS Monitor article had nothing to do with campaigning, it in fact it's all about the war on terror voter/GOP spin:

But Linda DiVall, a GOP pollster and expert on women voters, thinks all that pales in comparison to Bush's core appeal: "More than anything, voters see a moral clarity with Bush, a man of conviction."

Still, Kerry won the woman vote!

"Kerry having problems with black voters, this is just fantasy," said David Bositis, an expert on African American politics at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. "If there is a candidate in the primaries that was the clear selection of black voters it was John Kerry.”

During the Democratic primary season, Kerry dominated among African Americans, according to exit polling. In Louisiana and Mississippi, he received 83 percent of the black vote, compared to Mr. Clinton's 1992 numbers of 86 percent in Louisiana and 78 percent in Mississippi. In Florida, Kerry earned 81 percent of the black vote this year, versus Mr. Clinton's 74 percent in 1992. In Maryland, Kerry won 67 percent of the black vote, well ahead of Mr. Clinton's 49 percent twelve years ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/15/politics/main630060.shtml

Kerry won 5% more of the African American vote than Clinton.


The reasons you cite are those that the media used to trump up that Bush was this great guy with a moral compass and a plan, all lies. The reason people are still hanging on to the belief that the GOP is strong on terror is the media's doing. Then there were the constant terror threats and Iraq/WMD links.

Kerry still got strong numbers despite it all. The 59 million voters, everyone who wanted Bush out of office, could have cared less if he went windsurfing and hunting.

[bling bling]

198. Okay, you don't want facts, I see.

I stated that Kerry pulled ads out of Missouri. You said it wasn't true. I proved it. You take a different angle.

Whatever. I don't have time for games.

Carry on.

[ProSense]

217. Here is your statement

His decision to just give up on funding ads in some of the states like Missouri. Missouri was NOT a lost cause. Kerry got a lot of votes considering he all but ignored this state. With a little money and effort he could have had a better chance.

Show me where it says Kerry "all but ignored this state."

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

From the link you provided:

Kerry spent about $15 million in the four states, half of it in Missouri, trying to put them in play. It was part of a strategy to stretch the battlefield into GOP territory, from Virginia and North Carolina in the South to Arizona in the Southwest and Nevada in the West.

Constantly shifting their strategies, both campaigns recently increased their ad budgets in West Virginia and Colorado. Bush has boosted his ads in Minnesota, Maine and Oregon — all states won by Gore that Kerry can't afford to lose.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-22-kerry-pulls-ads_x.htm

[bling bling]

318. What are you even arguing me about?

Maybe I wasn't clear?? Here's my point:

KERRY GAVE UP ON MISSOURI. It was a bad campaign decision, in my opinion.

I don't know why you keep posting the same thing that doesn't disprove my point. HE GAVE UP ON MISSOURI. HE PULLED THE ADS. Who cares how many ads he ran 2 months BEFORE the elections? Who besides us and the freepers pay attention to the elections that early? Missouri got nothing from Kerry when it mattered. It was infuriating and hugely disappointing to see his campaign abandon this state when I truly felt like they had a very good chance to win it here.

Please stop changing your angle and/or splitting hairs in an effort to maintain your position that my statement was inaccurate. It wasn't and I have proved it.

[ProSense]

321. No argument. My response is clear. n/t

[blm]

205. Those cameramen were NEWS camera men - and NEWS people had the duty to

report the truth about the photos and the man they were photographing.

They didn't. You blame the man in the photograph.

[bling bling]

207. They were photo-ops.

And they backfired. I blame his campaign manager for setting up photo-ops that were SO easy for the Republicans to turn around and use to their advantage.

Kerry Hunting Trip Sets Sights on Swing Voters

"Senior adviser Mike McCurry was quite direct this week in saying that the two-hour predawn hunting trip was another attempt to get voters to know Kerry, who has had some issues with his so-called likeability factor. Kerry also has been talking about his Catholic faith more, and on Sunday he will give a speech on values."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html

[blm]

208. An opportunity for NEWS cameras to capture a moment of TRUTH and report

that Kerry, as a lifelong HUNTER, respected gun ownership while being an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership laws.

Did the NEWS corps report that accurately? They CHOSE not to and instead stuck with Rove' storyline that he was "trying" to be manly, as if a war hero has to "TRY" and look manly. YOU bow to that storyline and spread it as fact when you repeat it.

The windsurfing pic was while he was taking a 2day BREAK from campaigning..

[bling bling]

211. Kerry got screwed, no doubt.

He got screwed into defending himself against BULLSHIT accusations from the right. I completely agree with you. I'm not against Kerry. I was absolutely devastated when he lost. I'm not sure I've totally recovered to be honest. And off the subject a little, I was completely crushed that we wouldn't get to have Theresa as the first lady. I truly believe she would have been the best thing that could have happened for women in this country to have a role model like her. I get a knot in my stomach just thinking about what we COULD have had.

But regardless, my opinion is still that his campaign manager did a dreadful job. I felt that way back before the election and I still feel that way. I think he was given poor advice about how to reach the voters. I think his campaign advisors were totally out of touch with just how formidable and dirty the GOP campaigning methods had become under Rove's puppetry. I think Kerry was screwed not only by the GOP but by the people he trusted to advise him.

[blm]

212. Their miscalculation was the miscalculation of the entire Dem party - they

did not understand the amount of control the GOP has over the newsmedia.

Dems are just starting to come to terms with it now, since heavily footnoted books like LAPDOGS spelled it out for them.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[politicasista]

87. Another positive Kerry thread turned into a flamewar

Go figure. :(

[zulchzulu]

88. You'd think this was Freep Repuglick by some of the posts...

I guess some people are just frakin' clueless about who is on whose side...

[politicasista]

89. Exactly

It's really funny yet pathetic at the same time.

[CarlVK]

108. Come on, a free exchange of ideas isnt a reason to go crying Freep

In fact one thing I'm proud about our side is that we are not intellectual locksteppers like the Neoconzis. Honorable people can have honest disagreements.

[zulchzulu]

114. I suppose making things up is fact...okey dokey...

I won't bother with a timeline on how the Kerry campaign responded (it was less than a week after the first ads appeared) nor will I bother talking about how the Swiftboaters (debunked on over 10 major newspapers and other media channels) kept getting their story out all the way up to November...

Let's just play Fairy Tale Kerry Bash Fun! So what if they are lies! It's just so much fun to attack your own! Weeee!!!!

[CarlVK]

143. What did this have to do with the notion of a free exchange of ideas?

Was there a switch thrown on the railroad tracks when I wasn't looking?

[zulchzulu]

160. Are half-truths, misconceptions, lies and Repug talking points...ideas?

...in that case...
:puke: <- another idea

[CarlVK]

163. That's your mischaracterizations.

An exchange of ideas is just that. I cannot figure out why you are so nasty in your responses over this issue. Thankfully, the vast majority of DUers don't react like this.

I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

[AtomicKitten]

92. everyone is entitled to weigh in on

Kerry's announcement that this time around he'd get tough with the bastards. As voters, we are all entitled to an opinion. I expressed mine respectfully and thus consider myself exempt from your allegation that a flame war has ensued. That is, of course, unless you are insinuating that those that aren't moved by Kerry's 3-year too late resolve have an inappropriate response. Surely you don't expect all the people here at DU to be on the same page, right? As long as that difference of opinion is expressed respectfully, that does not constitute a flame war.

[zulchzulu]

94. I'm sorry you're too busy to do some homework...

In case you've missed it, Kerry has been dealing with these Swiftboat asswipes for at least 15 years. What you see here are people who have eaten the MSM dog food and haven't a clue about just how disgusting the Swiftboaters are...

The MSM is very complicit in keeping the "story" alive in the 2004 election cycle. Kerry did respond in many speeches, other vets responded (like McCain), yet the MSM let the story still continue.

These MSM dog food eaters here prove to me that when the fight gets rough, they would be the last people I'd want on my side. Period.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I'm sorry you are too enraptured to face reality.

He was late in his response and ineffectual when he finally weighed in. He should have come out IMMEDIATELY and STRONG. EVERYBODY thought so at the time, probably you too I'll bet.

The MSM has always been and no doubt will continue to be a PIA to Democrats, but Kerry as the Democratic nominee had the gravitas to get his face on the air EVERYWHERE and scream loud and hard, but he didn't.

I realize he disappointed you too, but rather than trying to blame those for pointing it out, you might want to make an effort to process this yourself. I'll bet there are more Democrats that agree with me than with you on this particular issue.

If we expect to put forward a strong candidate, it's not a good idea to handicap them with blind acceptance and rationalization of their shortcomings. We don't want a repeat performance of that monster mistake in another election.

[CarlVK]

103. Slow on the response. Exactly.

And at this time, that quality scares the HELL out of me.

[zulchzulu]

107. As Kerry said, the Swiftboaters have been debunked and can't use...

...their crap on him again in 2008 if he runs.

He is ready to take them on. If any news show dares to try to play their cards again, they would be slapped back.

As for him not attacking them, I have video of him speaking (I was there) attacking them. Yuh, it wasn't on Fox News or ABC...but he was speaking out. It just so happened the MSM kept having the Swifties on talk shows and the GOP had millions of dollars to play the ads.

I don't know who your candidate was in 2004, but anyone who ran would have been Roved to Oblivion. Name the candidate and I could give you the Repug talking point that would have been repeated ad nauseum and given nearly unchallenged exposure by the MSM.

I find it a shame that people don't see the light on this. Perhaps laziness or not wanting to find out the truth is the problem.

[CarlVK]

111. But that's an old issue, and one that has already served Rove's purposes

I find it a little odd that there is so much attention to it now. Shouldn't we be worrying about their attack tactics COMING rather than the ones in the past?

[zulchzulu]

122. The Repugs will use the same crap over and over again...

...to see what will stick.

What they can't do with Kerry is bring in John O'Neill and his Merry Liars of Bullshit. Their wad is shot. Even Fox News doesn't have them on anymore due to knowing that their charges against Kerry were debunked clearly and fully.

Every candidate running against the Repugs will have their own Swiftboat lies to contend with. What Kerry has as an advantage is that they can't use the Swiftboaters. They'll have to lie about something else...

[CarlVK]

136. Methods? Yes. Particular faces? Not likely.

and I don't want us to be caught off guard. Screaming about the Swift Boat Liars at this point smacks of a a brontosaurus feeling the pain three minutes after a rock fell on his tail (you know how long the nerve impulse had to travel up the spine of that enormous beast).

We have to be ahead of the game - not behind it.

[ProSense]

113. How is the same day late?

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

I realize that you are just saying anything at this point.

[zulchzulu]

117. They should have read their goddamn crystal ball!

They attacked back the same day? Too little, too late!!!

Oh wait, wasn't there that big Michael Jackson story at the time?

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

120. yes, you are just saying anything - grasping at straws

A PRESS CONFERENCE? HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT UP DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY OR UNTIL THE SB LIARS STOPPED.

You're a fan. It's cute, really.

I am content knowing most people are DU are serious voters and won't be bogged down with this kind of adoration of personality. We need a leader. Someone that knows how to kick ass and take names. Kerry is not that person.

But, you know what? That will be played out in the primaries in 2008. See ya there.

[ProSense]

123. Nice deflection. Can't answer a simple question, huh? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

132. asked and answered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2828831&mesg_id=2830489

Bottom line, you are a fan. Now, grow up and become a citizen and a responsible voter.

[ProSense]

134. Still can't answer! n/t

[zulchzulu]

130. Agreed...see you in the 2008 primaries...

Whoever you are for, I hope you kick some butt supporting him/her. I'll be supporting my candidate. We'll see what happens.

[AtomicKitten]

135. self-delete

[fedupinBushcountry]

188. Cute?

You know I am sick of people who think that Kerry supporters have no right to speak for him or about him. Then go and accuse those same supporters of not being serious voters. For your INFORMATION, I am a very serious voter and I did my own research on every candidate before I put my support behind Kerry. My heart and gut feeling went into that decision, I chose without anyone telling me WHO to chose. It had nothing to do with adoration , I really think that is lame and just because he is not or never was your choice does not make you a voice of all here on DU. It also does not give you the right to PUT DOWN other DU'ers.

[AtomicKitten]

214. nobody is interfering with your right

to support Kerry; you are confusing being oppressed with people who simply disagree with you.

In the words of Bill Maher last night in reference to the Kerry comment that precipitated this OP, "Who was running his campaign, FEMA?"

[fedupinBushcountry]

277. Bill Maher? Oppressed?

Get real, you choose a comic pundit for your info, yeah real serious. I'll think what I want OK? Oh by the way were you against Kerry before you were for him in '04? Don't bother answering I know what the answer is.

[AtomicKitten]

281. there is a serious problem in communication here

Bill Maher is not a purveyor of information; I suspect you know that. However, his comment last night punctuated the POV some here are DU are railing against.

And nobody is trying to tell you what to think, dear. That's the oppression that you are again alleging. Your words: "You know I am sick of people who think that Kerry supporters have no right to speak for him or about him."

Some people think Kerry ran a terrible campaign. It is what it is. You are perfectly entitled to disagree.

And FTR, I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary, but I did work for him in the general election, if that is what you are asking.

[fedupinBushcountry]

284. No problem here

But funny how you didn't answer my question to you.

[AtomicKitten]

288. yes I did

I was against Kerry before I was for him in 2004 - BTW you are ridiculing Kerry here and apparently don't realize it.

I told you I did not vote for him in the primary - ergo against him - before voting for him in the general - for him - in 2004.

Do you need me to elucidate further?

[fedupinBushcountry]

291. No ridiculing here

and I guess your candidate ran a great campaign and it is Kerry's fault in some way.

Kerry used that phrasing last weekend, so no ridiculing here.

[AtomicKitten]

303. my candidate didn't run

any more theories why I don't think Kerry made a very good candidate?

[ProSense]

293. Bill Maher doesn't speak for Democrats!

Iowa this weekend:

[CarlVK]

294. How in the world do you know?

Democrats are quite diverse in their opinions and even shades of opinion on major issues. How you can claim that you are in the head of every Democrat alive to know whether "Bill" speaks for them or not is.....well, not believable.

[ProSense]

296. Just checked: He's not an official spokesperson for the party n/t

[CarlVK]

299. That's not what you stated. Let me refresh your memory.....

You said that "Bill Maher doesn't speak for Democrats!" You did not say that "Bill Maher isn't an official Democratic Party spokesman".

Before you switch, make sure the bait is fresh.

[AtomicKitten]

301. bingo

bait and switch
shuck and jive

crappola coming from someone whose debate technique consists of either changing the subject or ridicule and name-calling

[ProSense]

305. Is Bill Maher a Democrat? He isn't even an unofficial spokesperson n/t

[AtomicKitten]

300. Bill Maher is a Libertarian

which makes this yet another tangent of silliness moot.

However, his joke about the 2004 Kerry campaign being run by FEMA resonated with the many Democrats who agree that he was not a good candidate and ran a lousy campaign.

No one has denied extraneous factors such as the MSM and election fraud; that isn't the point in dispute nor does it eradicate the underlying notion that we can do better.

But, you know what? We'll settle this at the ballot box in the 2008 primary. All your posturing and brow-beating and ridiculing and name-calling are for naught; those are bullying tactics from someone who doesn't have the common courtesy and grace to tolerate another point of view.

[ProSense]

306. Bingo! n/t

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

310. Yikes! n/t

[Name removed]

311. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

313. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

317. This is a mature and intelligent response! n/t

[Name removed]

319. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarlVK]

98. Well, sorta.

I haven't been on DU that long but I've noticed that a small cadre of those who carry a torch for the candidacies of John Kerry, Al Gore, or Wes Clark have been completely free to flame, smear or ad hom those who disagree with them. On a regular basis. Had these comments come from the other direction, the perps would have been banned.

I support the Democratic Party in general. But that doesn't mean that I believe certain prominent Democrats would be ideal candidates at this time. That's merely my opinion. It's not blasphemy, it's not a reason to get flamed or ad hommed, and it's certainly no reason to get called a "freeper". It just means we may disagree on certain personalities.

[AtomicKitten]

104. I agree.

It's kind of a tag-team sport.

[ProSense]

121. Sort of like

the tag team of detractors, huh? They show up like clockwork!

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

129. Who said it was a fan club meeting?

Say anything! I can respond, it's called free speech! Opinions, Bush has many, do not override facts!

[CarlVK]

128. Look, I've worked on campaigns....

I know the heartbreak of seeing the returns come in and all the hard work you did, all the hopes and beliefs you had in your candidate, turn to vapor. It sucks. But after the debacle, you owe it to yourself to pick yourself and analyze what just happened. There could be a million reasons things went wrong, but you have to honestly examine them so you don't repeat those mistakes.

John Kerry is a wonderful man, but a demonstrably awfull candidate. That's not an opinion, but an observation of fact. Hence, what sort of sense would it make to run such a person next time, given the awfull stakes we are facing? This next contest has to be less about egoes, less about personality worship, and more about how we are going to get control back so the fascists don't drive this nation into a ditch.

Are you ready to make the hard decisions, even if the ideal candidate isn't your favorite person?

[ProSense]

133. Demonstrably

better than any Democrat in history with 59 million plus votes!

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8618.html

[CarlVK]

137. But not good enough to put him in the Oval Office.

That's what I'm interested in. Not second place.

[ProSense]

139. That's

quite different from being a lousy candidate! Then let's ignore all the post claiming he didn't fight the election results! :eyes:

[CarlVK]

145. That's just an opinion. They may differ from yours.

I can't figure out why this is so upsetting.

[ProSense]

154. No one is upset!

This is a discussion. I still say, joining claims that Kerry was a lousy candidate, when he did extremely well, with claims that he didn't fight the election doesn't make sense!

[CarlVK]

159. It's just an opinion. I think we have better candidates.

And that seems to be driving you nuts. Not sure why.

[ProSense]

171. Not really!

IMO, Kerry is the best candidate out there. Are you OK?

[CarlVK]

173. I disagree - I say Dean. Are you OK?

[fedupinBushcountry]

308. Really

So why didn't he win the primary, he had the money and the media?

[CarlVK]

316. He was triangulated on by the DLC.

That's old news. It's one thing to be beaten in an election by the candidate from an opposing party, but a real shame to be Julius Caesared by one's own.

[Mudoria]

216. Agreed..

we can do better than wasting time with another run by Kerry.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[CarlVK]

148. Sanctimonious snotbag? That was cute.

Maybe you should read the DU rules on ad homs? Afterwards perhaps we can discuss like two civilized humans. What do you say?

[zulchzulu]

153. I'll discuss facts with others who have facts...lies...not so much...

Perhaps you can be a champ and maybe read what others have posted to you that refute your "claims".

I changed the "snotbag" reference.

[CarlVK]

157. What lies?

Spell out any "lies" you think I have told no this issue.

[janx]

314. The primaries were hell around here.

And as another primary approaches (even though it's years away), the same kind of behavior is exhibited by some posters; hell, some never stopped the cheerleading.

Here are some unwritten rules (as far as I've been able to discern them):

1. Posts in GDPolitics about one "candidate" (nobody is running yet, after all) are intended to be promotional. Therefore, voicing an opinion contrary to the status quo of the thread makes one a kind of disruptor within the thread. Such behavior is often called "pissing on" the thread.

2. The "candidates" themselves have nothing to do with the less-than-stellar posting behavior on the part of a relatively small number of people. In other words, it's usually best to note the person doing the negative posts, rather than the "candidate" that person supports.

If I think of any more observations/helpful hints about the tag-team behavior, I'll let ya know. ;-)

[CarlVK]

325. If these threads are any indication, I'm glad I wasn't here.

sheesh.

[MH1]

124. Weighing in...

The facts have been posted over and over and over AND OVER again at DU over the last couple years, yet repeatedly certain posters will "play dumb" and snipe, smear, and generally jerk off a load of nonsense about whichever "leading Dem" is being praised for doing something good now.

Then there are the new posters that show up frequently with the load of nonsense, and often they let slip so many republican talking points that they give themselves away and get a nice pretty headstone on their profile.

I haven't even read all of this thread but saw your reply here and just thought I would explain why the suspicions of freeperhood can often arise. (What, you don't think freepers come to play at DU?)

Plus, to say that the repeated sniping and bullshit is tiresome is a major understatement. It's fucking OLD.

I haven't gone back to read your posts so I don't know why you feel like you were being labeled a freeper. I will suggest the following, based on observations of other posters on similar threads: you are entitled to your opinion - but if you use that as cover for spreading misinformation, you can expect to get called on it.

Please also note that MOST avid supporters of particular Dems on DU (like Kerrycrats or Clarkies for instance), DO NOT, repeat DO NOT make a habit of disrupting threads about Dems we don't prefer. MOST of us prefer to build up our own guys or gals, rather than denigrate someone else who is working hard in ways generally supportive of our common cause. 2008 will take care of itself - I feel no desire whatsoever to trash someone else just because I am afraid they will *gasp* run for president in 2008. I really don't understand why other people feel such an urge. It really boggles my mind....we have an election THIS year to win, and a lot of work to do to make that happen. Pissing and moaning at each other seems kinda counterproductive.

Just my .02.

[CarlVK]

141. Not sure what you mean. I'm not "trashing" anyone.

I said, numerous times, that John Kerry is a good man who has served the Democratic party and most of the values I treasure quite well. But, I feel he is demonstrably an awfull candidate. Thats NOT trashing. It simply means I think there is at least one area he does not excel in.

It's not a very intelligent response to yell "Freeper" or "disruptor" when that is pointed out. Also, I have posted positive comments about Howard Dean on this thread, and many others. So let's not mischaracterize my responses, ok?

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[CarlVK]

161. Thanks Kitten!

I surely think DU is a wonderful site. I won't hold the flaming insults of a few members against it in any way.

[MH1]

190. Calling someone "spineless" is "respectful"?

O-kay. :eyes:

[MH1]

192. Particularly virulent?

I post a respectful explanatory post, and this is the bullshit I get in reply?

AK I've given you some latitude before. I understand you support other Dems and dislike them being trashed as muched as Kerry supporters dislike seeing Kerry trashed. I've ignored some insulting posts in the past because I understand that it gets frustrating. But, no more will I keep my finger off the alert button just for that reason.

[AtomicKitten]

213. pssst

I wasn't talking to or even referring to you or anyone in particular. My comment to Carl was, in fact, in reference to people insulting him with charming epithets sprinkled throughout this thread.

It is unfortunate that people are so enraptured with a politician that they take discussion of them so personally. Because whether you like it or not, there are millions of Americans that were grossly disappointed with Kerry's 2004 campaign and would not support another go.

And if I ever exhibit the blind adoration and fractious hysterics exhibited in this thread toward any politician, I give you permission to skip the alert button and go straight to putting a bullet right between my eyes.

[MH1]

189. Oh?

First, I never said you were. I thought my post was clear that I didn't go look at all your posts on this thread, I was merely explaining the sensitivity to disruption that occurs on these threads.

But, since you made me go look - here's the first post I found by you on this thread:

CarlVK (379 posts) ... Fri Sep-15-06 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. you're not alone in that lament.

Day late and a dollar short.....

Replying to post:

Phredicles (291 posts) Fri Sep-15-06 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. Just one freakin' time I wish our candidate would locate a backbone

and grow a pair BEFORE the election!

Okay, since when is insulting someone, calling them "spineless", NOT "trashing"? Not to mention, as I said, the facts debunking same have been posted over and over again on this board.

Here's an idea: Go read Eric Boehlert's book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush. (Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Lapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush/dp/0743289315/sr=1-1/qid=1158409153/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3378970-9565747?ie=UTF8&s=books). Then reflect for a moment on "the Dean scream", and reconsider your ideas of what happened in 2004.

Oh, and in reply to your post #90: "People like Howard Dean need to be given a real clear shot at these Rethugs. They have the stuff, now more than ever." - :rofl: - Howard Dean needs to be GIVEN a shot?!? Oh, yeah, that'll work. First, Howard Dean promised not to run when he became DNC chair. Second, the person who wins is not going to be someone it was "given" to - even Hillary will have to work and fight if she really wants it. As it should be.

[CarlVK]

235. Thank you for the post, but you forget one thing...

If you are going to dismiss Dean because he is currently in a position of party leadership (i.e. not running) then you must dismiss Kerry as well, since he is not "running" either. I am not referring to the current positions of these men at this point in time, I'm speaking to their eligibility as good potential candidates to face of the Rethugs. And I stand by my statements.

[Totally Committed]

218. Right on the mark!

I said, numerous times, that John Kerry is a good man who has served the Democratic party and most of the values I treasure quite well. But, I feel he is demonstrably an awfull candidate. Thats NOT trashing. It simply means I think there is at least one area he does not excel in.

It's not a very intelligent response to yell "Freeper" or "disruptor" when that is pointed out. Also, I have posted positive comments about Howard Dean on this thread, and many others. So let's not mischaracterize my responses, ok?

I tried saying something similar upthread and was shouted down, too. It's sad, because we are now two years past his defeat, and because people have not been allowed to say what they really feel about him, his campaign, and that very defeat... to express their disappointment and frustration freely without being called names and being shouted down... that there has been no healing allowed.

One of the stages of grief is anger, and Kerry's supporters have not allowed us to move past that stage with him or them. They have fought every inch of the way, and it has only hardened people's feelings agaoinst him. It's sad, but true.

ETA: In the end it would have been far more effective a tactic to let the anger felt be expressed freely, and with understanding. I feel it would have largely dissipated by now if that was handled in a healthy way.

TC

[CarlVK]

236. "...and it has only hardened people's feelings agaoinst him."

This is the most powerful part of your post. Glaring truth. I do not understand why so many of his supporters don't see this.

[Totally Committed]

264. I dunno....

But, thanks... :)

TC

[janx]

322. See my post #104

;-)

[zulchzulu]

144. Well said...

Kerry might want to...

G A S P...

        want to...
                              ...run for...
                                                      ......President? .......

                                                                                               GET HIM!!!

[politicasista]

149. ....

What does GASP mean? :shrug:

[CarlVK]

151. Let's get Dean instead.

[zulchzulu]

170. They have these things called "primaries"...ever heard of them?

If you want to support Dean in the primaries...by all means....go for it.
:bounce:
Really....nobody is stopping you.
:think:
And ya know what?

If Kerry wants to run in the primaries, you don't have to support him....get it?

Alrighty then...
:crazy:

[CarlVK]

172. Yes, in fact I've worked in them. Have you?

I mean, as long as we are in snarky mode.....

[zulchzulu]

174. I'm finishing up a documentary about the 2004 race...

I was there...

I do apologize for the snarkiness. I do also ask you read up on the issues about this thread from people that are trying to show you the dealio.

Take care.

[CarlVK]

178. OK, no worries. Have a good night.

[MH1]

193. Dean can't run in 2008. He promised.

Would you try to convince him to renege on that promise?

[CarlVK]

225. I hope he changes his mind!

If he ended up being the best chance against another rethug prez candidate, I'd be honored to let him out of his promise. Wouldn't you?

[MH1]

230. Hypothetically

I would possibly agree, that is *if* he is the best chance to beat the rethug. BUT -

a) My opinion is that he is not likely to be the best chance - I like him and what he is doing at DNC, mind you;

b) I don't think we can tell who will have "the best chance" at winning. I vote mainly based on who I think will govern best. If Dean does run, he would be on my short list.

c) in any case the breaking of that promise would be fodder for a lot of carping about him adn whether he could be "trusted"

Finally, I *REALLY* like what he is doing at the DNC, and I want him to keep doing it. He's young enough to run for pres later, right? Let's build the DNC to where it needs to be, now.

Personally I think Howard would be happy to know that his work at the DNC brought us a Democratic president and an end to the reign of terror. I don't think he needs to be president to satisfy his own psyche. And I respect that a lot.

[Totally Committed]

219. Please understand...

He and his advisors ran a shitty campaign.

Because he of that, and some Election fraud, he lost.

Because he conceded without even giving any credence to the election fraud, as he had promised to do, many felt shafted.

So, he lost and we felt shafted.

On top of feeling shafted, we had to suffer another 4 years of Bush and his criminal administration. And that meant:

**** Two more extremist ideological justices named to the SCOTUS

**** The loss of many personal and civil Rights, without any added security

**** The trashing of the Constitution

**** Katrina and all the horrors thereof

**** The slow death of science

**** The slow death of The Seperation of Church and State

**** The Iraq debacle continues

**** We are disliked and disrespected worldwide

**** The economy is in the toilet

**** The Housing Bubble has burst leaving many in debt they will never pay off...

**** CAFTA, The Personal Bakruptcy Bill, more Taxcuts for the Rich, Repeal of the Death Tax

**** The highest deficit in history

**** Every child left behind

**** Repeated attempts to privatize Social Security

And on and on and on...............

And, we are supposed to be glad he's ready to fight NOW????????

Unbelieveable.

Illogical.

Disrespectful.

And Unrealistic.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

220. ditto

[ProSense]

223. Still

pushing this flawed argument:

He and his advisors ran a shitty campaign.

Because he of that, and some Election fraud, he lost.

Because he conceded without even giving any credence to the election fraud, as he had promised to do, many felt shafted.

How is that possible? Did he win or lose? If it was "a shitty campaign" how did he come close or even win a stolen election?

This is the same argument you made upthread, to which I responded:

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

here


Now what margin would that have been? Kerry was a great candidate, and did better than any other candidate in history. What margin did he have to produce to out great every other candidate in order to overcome an election rife with fraud?

Kennedy 34,220,984
Nixon 34,108,157
1960 68,832,482

Johnson 43,127,041........8,906,057 (more than Kennedy)
Goldwater 27,175,754
1964 70,639,284
1,806,802 more

Nixon 31,783,783..........-11,343,258 (less than Johnson)
Humphrey 31,271,839
1968 73,199,998
2,560,714 more

Nixon 47,169,911..........15,386,128 (more than last)
McGovern 29,170,383
1972 77,744,027
4,544,029 more

Carter 40,831,881.........-6,338,030 (less than Nixon)
Ford 39,148,634
1976 81,531,584
3,787,557 more

Reagan 43,903,230.........3,071,349 (more than Carter)
Carter 35,480,115
1980 86,509,678
4,978,094 more

Reagan 54,455,472........10,552,242 (more than last)
Mondale 37,577,352
1984 92,653,233
6,143,555 more

Bush 48,886,597...........-5,568,875 (less than Reagan)
Dukakis 41,809,476
1988 91,594,686
-1,058,547 less

Clinton 44,909,806.........-3,976,791 (less than Bush)
Bush 39,104,550
1992 104,423,923
12,829,237 more

Clinton 47,400,125.........2,490,319 (more than last)
Dole 39,198,755
1996 96,275,401
-8,148,522 less

Bush 50,460,110...........3,059,985 (more than Clinton)
Gore 51,003,926...........3,603,801 (more than Clinton)
2000 105,417,258
9,141,857 more

Bush 62,040,610..........11,580,500 (more than last)
Kerry 59,028,111...........8,024,185 (more than Gore)
................................11,627,986 (more than Clinton)
2004 122,293,332
16,876,074 more

Reagan increased his margin by 10.5 million votes, but 7 million that when to other candidates (5,719,850 to John Bayard Anderson, who billed himself as a liberal Republican in) in the 1980 election. It appears those votes when to Reagan the second time around. Six million more voted, and Mondale topped Carter by 2 million votes.

In 1972, Nixon experienced a similar uptick because the nearly 10 million votes George Wallace picked up in 1968 were back in play.

Bush/Clinton totals were from a highly motivated electorate including Perot voters in the overall total.

Bush/Gore was a highly publicized contest by the totals. Look at the huge leap in the number of voters in 2004. Given that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and had no Anderson- or Wallace-like votes to pick up, makes the 2004 election an oddball.

and here


To which you responded with something about healing. Followed by my response:

No one is stopping people from healing. How does stating the facts stop people from healing? That is what people need to heal. If someone were truly unable to cope and trying to heal, that person wouldn't be here rehashing distortions. They would be trying to understand the facts and come to grips with them. Healing isn't about constant blaming, it's about soul-searching and trying to understand the facts.

I consider anyone rehashing distortions two years later, when they have been presented with the facts over and over, to be disingenous!

here

[CarlVK]

226. Cut and paste...cut and paste.

This is not a good substitute for real discussion, ProSense. If I wanted continual mindless pastings of previous posts, I'd go to....well...that other place. I'm sure you can do better than this.

[ProSense]

229. Maybe best since

they don't like to acknowledge facts either. How does one have an honest discussion with someone who ignores the facts?

[CarlVK]

241. It's mindless and nonproductive.

People have already responded to those, so repasting them as if that never happened is robotic and silly.

That is not discussion.

[Totally Committed]

228. Once again... You are basically saying we're all disingenuous

to feel differently than you do about a specific candidate, without regard for logic or regard for what has transpired since his loss. Your C & P will not make us feel better. You need to try and understand where we are coming from, and let us express ourselves without calling names.

I will say this once more: It does Kerry no good to have you all so unwilling to engage in discussion without becoming so defensive and accusatory. The way we feel is LOGICAL after what happened. What you are telling us is ILLOGICAL.

Please try and understand.

TC

[ProSense]

231. Didn't say that!

There are more than 94,000 DUers. I pretty sure the majority are not disingenuous! Example: by your post you're implying that Kerry just decide to fight and listed a litany of issues. Where have you been? He has been leading the fight against the Bush administration, and is definitely the Senate leader in fighting to get the troops out of Iraq! I posted facts and you have ignored them. One of your responses was "Whatever!" So if you continue to respond to my post, ignoring the facts posted, I will continue to reiterate them.

[Totally Committed]

237. I'm trying to tell you that a lot of us are not ready to read your "truth"

You may have a better response to getting people NOT to ignore your "facts" if you allow them to get being pissed to hell out of their systems first... instead of arguing with them endlessly. I'm trying to tell you your method is not working. You seem to be unwilling and unable to allow any emotional response at all, even if only to allow people to get sh*t our of their systems. That was what my "whatever" was in response to.

REpeating and repeating "facts" at us when we are UNABLE to emotionally deal with hearing them makes us a bunch of deaf ears. That's all. Psychologically, what you are doing does not make sense.

TC

[ProSense]

243. My truth? "repeating "facts" at us when we are UNABLE to emotionally deal"

So now you're saying that people who are distorting the facts about the campaign and the election and trashing the Senator in the most vile way are doing it because they're "UNABLE to emotionally deal with hearing them"?

OK!

A lot of people, including me, are still waiting for someone to be held accountable for election fraud, the illegal war and a host of other infractions. I don't buy it that anyone believes the above actions have anything to do with advancing theses causes! No one who supported Senator Kerry and understood what he was up against would resort to such behavior. People are disappointed, and it runs deep, in me too, but trying to blame Senator Kerry (which I can understand to a small degree!) and attack his credibility two years later is, IMO, base!

[CarlVK]

245. You're "truth" is someone else's "opinion".

So let's climb down from the high horse here and join the human family, shall we? TC is making some very valid points and I can scarcely believe that you are still swatting them away.

[ProSense]

246. That's nonsense! If someone buys an ad, the person bought an ad!

If the ad ran, it ran. This is simply more contortion on your part and proves the disingenous nature of your responses!

[AtomicKitten]

248. the issue is INTERPRETATION of facts

not facts per se. I will offer this analogy. When little kids act up in a restaurant, some parents think it's adorable while others think the behavior is atrocious. It is interpretation from differing perspectives.

To incessantly offer up cut and pasted excerpts as "facts" misses the point entirely. What some view as a perfectly acceptable campaign others view as an unmitigated disaster. And mainstream validation indicating a consensus of opinion (Bill Maher last night joking that Kerry's campaign was run by FEMA) punctuates the real fact here and that is there is a distinct, valid difference of opinion.

[ProSense]

250. "Bill Maher last night joking that Kerry's campaign was run by FEMA"

See how RW talking points get started?

[AtomicKitten]

252. not RW at all, it is what many Democrats think

Again, your "facts" are really just your opinion. And you really need to come to terms with that because you are not helping your pro-Kerry cause with your refusal to accept that others are entitled to their POV. There is a damn good reason why people feel this way regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it.

[ProSense]

254. If FEMA was in charge, he couldn't possibly have won

so people need to get over the fact that he concede!

[AtomicKitten]

256. here's a clue for you

Maher's reference to FEMA meant SLOW AND INEFFECTUAL, which many Democrats feel is a perfect description of Kerry's response to the SB liars.

You disagree. So what? It is what it is ---- A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

[ProSense]

258. Many Democrats don't accept your opinion!

Many believe Kerry won. You disagree! So what!

[AtomicKitten]

261. we weren't talking about the election being stolen.

You are twisting words to rationalize.

The OPINION we were discussing was whether or not Kerry ran a good campaign, specifically in response to the Swift Boat liars. We weren't talking about whether or not people think he won. I doubt you will find many here at DU that don't believe the 2004 election was stolen.

Try to be honest in your discussion because you aren't helping your cause by jumping from subject to subject in your effort to set up a strawman argument that doesn't exist.

[ProSense]

266. Try to be honest? There are a lot of

DUers who also believe Kerry won and the media was complicit in amplifying the Swift Liars message and drowning out the Kerry campaign's!

Can't we all just get along? You should try a little honesty yourself!

[AtomicKitten]

271. ONE LAST TIME

Most DU'ers, including me, agree that Kerry won and that the election was stolen, and that the MSM gave the Swift Boat liars free reign.

WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT THAT.

Now listen up here because I'm getting bored with this conversation, we are discussing how Kerry ran his campaign and specifically his response to the Swift Boat Liars.

Get it? No? Whatever.

Well, I'm off to enjoy the afternoon here in beautiful San Francisco. Yes, ProSense, there is life outside DU and perhaps you might want to explore that option. You are entangled in a mindset that could use a breath of fresh air.

[ProSense]

274. Enjoy the fresh air!

I really think with that response, you need it!

[AtomicKitten]

275. oh dear, now you are resorting to personal attacks

Resorting to personal attacks is genuinely lame and proof positive that that is all you've got.

We see you clearly now.

[ProSense]

278. "You are entangled in a mindset that could use a breath of fresh air. "

Not so clever!

[AtomicKitten]

279. It was sound advice to assist you in gaining perspective.

You are having a lot of trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact. You are also having a lot of trouble dealing with a difference of opinion gracefully. The suggestion that you push away from your computer and go outside was therapeutic. I would like to think if not so fully emotionally enmeshed in this topic you would see reason or at least acknowledge that other people have the right to their own POV.

However, I am beginning to doubt your capacity for insight at this point.

Regardless, have a great afternoon.

[ProSense]

282. Say anything, again, enjoy the fresh air! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

286. you could certainly use some

instead of squatting on a thread for the last word

[ProSense]

287. I thought you were going? Don't let responding to me delay you! n/t

[CarlVK]

265. And from what you see on this thread, many DO.

Your veering off into senseless territory here. Just a tit for tat.

[ProSense]

269. Nothing new

same group! Use to it, they've been at it for a long time! Just as you rebut distortions of Dean's record, I will continue to do the same for Kerry's

[CarlVK]

280. Thank you for admitting that people distort Dean's record.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[CarlVK]

295. Actually, thats incisively true.

Which is why I'm not too fond of trying that experiment out again in 2008.

[ProSense]

251. That's a poor analogy!

Saying Kerry didn't respond to Swift Liars or did nothing to challenge the election results can be disproved with one action! It doesn't require interpretation. The degree of response and number of actions are subject to interpretation, but the actions themselves cannot be discounted.

Saying some people viewed the Kerry campaign as a "unmitigated disaster" given the real numbers, and compared to others elections throughout history, is, IMO, illogical. Saying that and believing he won, IMO, is delusional.

[AtomicKitten]

253. no, it's a perfect analogy

you find Kerry's response perfectly reasonable
others find his response slow and ineffectual (like FEMA!!!) - nobody said he did nothing, and the fact that you feel the need to exaggerate suggests you are unsure of your own POV

keep railing at windmills all you like; it doesn't change how people feel

[ProSense]

255. So why do

you believe your "railing at windmills" will change how I feel?

[AtomicKitten]

257. I don't care what you think.

truly

[ProSense]

259. Guess what

the feeling is mutual!

[CarlVK]

260. That's "tilting" at windmills.

And I could ask that same question of you. Do you really believe that you are changing any minds by incessant cut and pastes of things that have ben addressed time and time again, and harranguing and insulting your fellows here?

[ProSense]

262. Why do you keep responding?

What do you hope to accomplish? You ignore the facts, attack sheepishly and when confronted, feign innocence.

[AtomicKitten]

263. you are expressing an opinion, dear, not facts

I'm sorry you are incapable of discerning the difference.

[ProSense]

270. I must have missed where you

posted one fact!

Here's a fact, same-day response:

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event.

[AtomicKitten]

273. opinions, dear, we are all discussing opinions

the difference is that you are confusing your own for fact.

[CarlVK]

267. I could ask you the same question!

And I think I will....

?

[karynnj]

292. You yourself posted that Gore's press was

extremely unfair - and backed it with a bartco article. I completely agree with you on that. What I don't understand is why you don't see that the unbalanced media of 2000 was far worse in 2004. (Also ignoring the Republicans controled the government in 2004 and used that to aid Bush through terror warnings.)

- Gore got 9 hours of network coverage for his convention to define himself - Kerry got 3.

- The balance between liberal and conservative on cable became far more extreme.

- The 2 main traditionally liberal newspapers, the NYT and the WP, had a neo-con element in 2004 that didn't exist in 2000. I'm more famillair with the NYT - here the Bush political news was reported mostly by Elizabeth Brumiller, who was very impressed by Bush; Kerry was covered by Adam Nougorney and Marjorie Wilgoren - who both interpreted everything in the worst light. Wilgoren going so far as calling Kerry a "social loner", ignoring he had life dozens of longterm friends involved in his campaign from high school, college, and the Navy. (It was also clear that it was Kerry corresponding with the entire group of college friends while he and some of them were in Vietnam that kept them close.)

The point is both Gore and Kerry were mistreated by the media. With a fair press, each would have won a land slide over Bush. (though obviously - there should have been no Kerry/Bush run.) the scary thing is it may be worse in 2008. PBS was liberal leaning or neutral (they did have some conservative shows), but with political appointees running it - they could be conservative too in 2008.

Why do you excuse Gore for not succeeding in stopping these Republican dirty tricks while not giving Kerry the same break?

[AtomicKitten]

298. I backed it with an article

that I wrote that BartCop featured. That is a disclaimer for clarification.

We weren't discussing the MSM nor the fact that 2000, 2002, and 2004 were all stolen elections. On that point, I think most of us agree. We were discussing the fact that Kerry now says he'd kick Swift Boat liars' ass this time around and whether or not that is a persuasive argument to support a 2008 run.

I have already stated that Kerry is a fine Senator and would probably make a fine president. However, and this is where we part company, I think he made a lousy candidate for president and I would not be inclined to support him in the Dem primary if he ran again. I'm sorry if that offends the delicate sensibilities of some here, but that's the way it goes.

Our divergent opinion on that issue is shared by others, both pro and con. It would be nice if people just accept that and quit trying to brow-beat, ridicule, tag-team assault, coerce, and other DU tactics to shout out those that disagree. I don't expect to persuade others to see my point of view. I am merely expressing my opinion and I accept that some agree and some don't.

[zulchzulu]

95. Read this PDF for who is involved in the SBVFT garbage, now fully debunked

http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/SBVFT.pdf

See who is behind the bullshit...then tell me that it's "OK".

[RBInMaine]

105. A good man, but he had his chance in '04 and blew it.

Kerry's a good man, but he had his chance and blew it in '04 with an unfocused "nicey-nice" campaign (until about the last month when he got some of Big Dog's people, but it was just too late). He won't stand a chance in '08. Neither will Hillary. Both should step aside. I'll be looking at people like Mark Warner, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, and Wes Clark: people who have more national appeal and more appeal overall in general than either Hillary or Kerry.

[OzarkDem]

110. I'm from Missouri - Show me

I know your heart is there, Sen. Kerry. Show us what you've got.

[Beacho]

118. too little, too late DUDE!

just sayin'

[lisainmilo]

147. I love his new attitude

I loved his speech on 9/11 as well!

[wisteria]

156. I just like Kerry more and more! He really is great. Pres. Kerry!

I think that sounds right.

[Boo Boo]

181. The phrase, "A day late and a dollar short" comes to mind

More like years late... and how much money did he end his campaign wihout spending?

[wagthedogwar]

185. all good men, to be sure

What about Micheal Dukakis in 2008? --he's a good man too.

[TheDonkey]

184. Love Kerry, but this is too little to late

...a line like that. Really upsets me how the swiftboat scandal was treated by his campaign.

[politicasista]

302. But we should blame the Democrats that didn't back him up

It still makes me angry that they stood on the sidelines and did nothing while Kerry was out there by himself. They failed him and underminded him (and still are) at every turn.

The Swifty liars was Cahill and Shrum's deal. Hopefully they won't be hired to screw up anymore presidential campaingns.

[Jack Pott]

187. How come Kerry didn't/doesn't sue the Swifties?

Kerry made a huge mistake by allowing the Swifties to trash his military service. We know that the Swifties have been caught lying. For instance:

In a sworn affidavit, Al French said he served with Kerry and that the Purple Heart medals Kerry received were obtained under false pretenses. However, French has admitted that he did not witness the events mentioned in the affidavit (which means he lied in his affidavit):

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70418

"Unfit for Command" claimed that William Schachte was with Kerry during the incident that led to his first Purple Heart. Schachte claimed that Kerry did not deserve his Purple Heart and that his wound was self-inflicted. However, Kerry's crewmates (Bill Zaladonis and Pat Runyon) said Schachte was not with them that night (which means Schachte lied):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180

George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star (one of the main allegations in "Unfit for Command"). Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star: "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Larry Thurlow claimed that Kerry didn't receive any enemy fire during the incident that led to his Bronze Star. However, Thurlow's own records show that there was enemy fire (which means Thurlow lied):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

John O'Neill claimed that he took over Kerry's boat after he requested early departure. O'Neill lied because his records indicate that he took command of PCF 94 more than five months after Kerry left Vietnam. O'Neill, who accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia, was himself caught lying about being in Cambodia. In 1971, this was his videotaped conversation with Nixon:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

O'Neill later claimed that no one could cross the border by river and that he himself had never been to Cambodia.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004

[MH1]

194. The bar is impossibly high for a politician to win a libel case.

I am not a lawyer but lawyers have explained this to me many times.

Basically, Kerry couldn't win such a lawsuit. Suing and losing would be something the smearboat liars would then use as vindication - successfully, because most Americans are clueless about these things.

In America, one can lie one's ass off about a politician or other public person, and fear little (legal) retribution. (And we wonder why we have a fucked up government?)

[leftofthedial]

199. Liston: I'm ready to whoop this Cassius Clay fellow

Poland: Those Nazis better watch out. I'm laying for them.

Custer: Them Injuns are in trouble now. Trust me.

[zonkers]

206. Whats that french saying? Words for the courthouse stairs"?

I'm too tired to look it up but its a good one... means the words you come up with on the way out of court, when it doesn't count anymore.

Timing is everything, Mr. Kerry.

[cleveramerican]

210. it won't happen

this is really pretty silly because HE HAS NO CHANCE OF GETTING NOMINATED.
He certainly is capable of taking another run at it. He has a huge campaign war chest and he has good name recognition. He can certainly contribute in framing the debate.


But mark my words: You Won't See Another Nominee from Massachusetts for a decade or more.

Dukakis and Kerry used up all Massachusetts' opportunities for the White House for a long time.

It certainly doesn't surprise me that Kerry himself will be the last one to figure this out.

I am from Massachusetts I have worked on two of Kerry's senate campaigns and his presidential run. I like the guy, but this is the big leagues and you get one chance.
Last time out, he was a longshot, this time its three times as long.

Go for it John, but you will need to really show something you NEVER have before.

[zcflint09]

209. Look, I'm not a huge Kerry supporter but this anti-Kerry jive is silly

You say Kerry lost in 2004; so did Al Gore in 2000, yet everyone's going silly feeling themselves up about him because he released a film about enviromentalism and made a few speeches. Everyone says people have had thier mind made up about Kerry no matter what he does because of his actions and public persona--yet Gore can suddenly "change" because he released a film about the enviroment and started actually speaking--but how does the "can't change anyone's mind" apply to Al Gore and not John Kerry?

I think it's mildly hypocritcal to say that Al Gore (who everyone on this message board is OH SO HIGH on right now) can change, yet John Kerry can't.

He made mistakes in his campaign--but you armchair quarterbacks need to realize that if you were running; you'd make a shitload of mistakes too. I don't think he's the right man for the nom right now--but given a choice between him, Hillary, and Al Gore--I'd pick John anytime. Remember for all this talk of Kerry not being liked by the populace--recent polls show that if the 2004 election were held today, he'd get around 60% of the popular vote. John made mistakes in his campaign..

but stop trashing a guy who has been a staunch Democrat and supported about 99.5% of liberal positions throughout his Senate career. This is the reason why Democrats probably won't get a majority in 06 or 08...ridiculous infighting and trashing Democrats who don't concur with someone's positions 100% of the time.

[Human Torch]

238. I'm the original poster, and I didn't say that.

When you reply to the original post, you need to read it and make sure that the things you're taking issue with are actually there.

"You say Kerry lost in 2004"

...no I didn't. I posted the story without comment. I replied to one person in the thread by saying that we waited a month during the 2004 campaign for a Swift Boat ass kicking that never happened.

If you have a link to an article about Kerry kicking the Swift Boaters' asses in 2004, I'd like to see it.

That's not infighting. That's not trashing him, so don't accuse me of it. That's posting facts. Sorry if you don't approve of them, but they are facts. If Senator Kerry truly believes voters will give him a second chance, I wish him all of the luck in the world.

[AtomicKitten]

312. you posted your OP without comment

They are upset that people aren't swayed by Kerry's 3-year too late declaration that this time around he'd fight back and they're not having any of it!!! They equate not favoring for trashing because it's the only way they can process the fact that people don't share their hero-worship.

[zulchzulu]

304. Amen

I don't get the nonsense...the worst part is that the MSM/Fox news-formulated talking points have been met with solid evidence to the contrary...and like spoiled children, they still scream like half-wits.

Also, consider that any candidate who ran against Bush/Rove with the compliant MSM would have had similar strategy decisions to pick at like old scabs...

[tinfoilinfor2005]

268. Prepared?? What's that Nike ad? Just do it.

You don't have to run for office to do what you should have done two years ago. Go find them and one by one, challenge them to prove their bullshit. If they can't, beat their ass.

No, I agree with the majority. That ship has sailed.

[woo me with science]

297. Bush: "I'm prepared to let the weapons inspectors do their job!"

[beachmom]

323. I support John Kerry for 2008!!

There is something called a primary, and may the best man or woman win, but I for one will support John Kerry 100%. He just keeps getting better every day.

[wisteria]

324. Well, I do too. Kerry in 2008! n/t

[ncrainbowgrrl]

326. Locking.

In the interest of trying to maintain civility, and as this thread has turned into a long drawn-out flamewar with relatively little other substantive content, it's time to lock this thread.

Thank you in advance for understanding!