Look, folks - Kerry doesn't care what you think of the McCain VP issue.

[boxster]

Because you're not the target audience.

The entire McCain soap opera was played out specifically for independent voters and potential swing voters.

It's simple, really.

Fact:
The (D) base will vote for Kerry.
The (R) base will vote for Bush.

Who's left? Ah, that would be the independent voters that so many here on DU like to pretend don't exist or aren't important.

Not only are they important, they are THE voters who will decide this election.

Kerry knew that McCain would never accept. But, even the RUMOR of an offer is a huge attention-getter with independents and swing voters. The mere appearance of bi-partisanship or non-partisanship this shows is HUGE to those people turned off by the divisiveness of American politics.

Hmm, why do you think a lot of people are independents in the first place?

If you honestly want Kerry to win, get used to the fact that he MUST target independents, because they're the only people that can really decide this election.

Trust me - this will not be the last time Kerry tries to reach across the aisle in this election. Better get used to it.

[Beetwasher]

1. Stop It! You're Making Too Much Sense!

How dare you discuss savvy PR techniques!!! Don't you get it! He MUST be ideological pure or he's NOTHING!!! :eyes:

[sallyseven]

2. What ever he does is ok with me.

I trust him with my sanity which I am slowly losing. 4 years of bush and I am in the nut house.

[bushwakker]

3. They WANT this story out there*

[NMDemDist2]

6. yes they do, in hopes it will cause Rove's head to explode

a very nice side benefit, the Kerry camp does it just to p*ss off the Bush campaign

edit speeling hehehehehe

[onehandle]

4. Yep. And what is important to us is that...

Kerry never asked McCain to be VP. Period.

The game is called politics. Relax and enjoy Rove's great burnout, folks. Kerry knows what he's doing.

[Kahuna]

5. I'm thinking Kerry may have considered that Guiliani may join bush...

There has been a lot of talk this week about bush dumping Cheney in favor of Guiliani. Bush could use Guiliani to compete in the NE. Especially, NY. Guiliani could help * to save face at the convention and possibly reverse his fortunes in NY state.

[onehandle]

7. No chance....

Cheney has to stick to Bush like glue. Dick has to stay in control to keep his ass out of prison.

Dick isn't going anywhere....until Jan 20th.

[boxster]

12. I think the Guiliani talk is just that - talk.

I think that Rudy is way too polarizing and has too much baggage to be a VP candidate. And honestly, I think the Rudy lovefest is pretty much over.

Guiliani will help Bush at the convention and in NY even without being the VP candidate (though, it won't be much help, either way).

I think the cons in a Rudy VP nomination outweigh the pros, even from the conservative perspective.

[aldian159]

59. The GOP base would run away

the hard line conservatives love Cheney. Rudy is on the record (can't find it, used to have it) of being pro-choice. That alone would cause the entire RR to abandon Bush.

[Arkana]

113. Agreed.

Rudy G has a rather, ah...sordid past. He wouldn't be a good candidate for the so-called "Morals" ticket.

[Pallas180]

8. Good try. No Soap. He wants independents, but by going for McCain

he loses the democratic LIBERAL base.

In essence I'm saying he lost people like ME>

I hope the convention is a runaway and nominates someone else. If not
I'll write in a candidate.


I dont think Kerry has any intentions of making the major changes and reversals that this administration has put in place. McCain is a true republican conservative - maybe not a neo-con - but McCain's policies are mostly abhorrent. Kerry has just shown himself to be all suit. no body

[boxster]

9. Sorry, but I disagree.

The base is going to vote for Kerry, regardless. Can you honestly say that liberals are going to vote for Bush because Kerry considered someone who is way left of Bush for VP?

The operative word here is "considered", by the way.

If they do vote for Bush because of this, they're either not really liberals or they're not paying attention. The thought of Bush being President for four more years is MUCH worse than Kerry making an overture to a guy that Kerry knew would never accept said overture.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. sorry but I disagree with you

I am the base, single pro-choice woman who has voted for every demcrat running since 1976. I have worked free for multiple democratic races. I was a super volunteer for Ed Rendell who I liked even though he was not as left as I would like.

Kerry is borderline loosing my vote. No of course I am not going to vote for bush or Nader. But I can write someone in. If Kerry is going to act and govern like a republican and chose a republican VP or even allow as how he might like to..that is an insult to me and to all of the democrats who could be chosen as his VP. He needs to cut this crap now. Have you seen Nader's numbers? There will come a point where any candidate can lose their base if they arrogantly believe it can not happen.

[boxster]

46. If you write someone in, your vote is meaningless in the big picture.

I'm sorry, but that's the bottom line in an election as important as this one. The only votes that count are the ones that Bush gets and the ones that Kerry gets. All other votes will do nothing other than provide some ideological satisfaction for the people casting them. While that may be ok for most people, it's not for me. Those third-party votes will not affect the outcome, unless it helps an idiot like Bush win the WH, as it did in 2000.

Nader voters thought that they were voting for an ideology in 2000 when all they got out of the deal was four years of Bush. If they didn't learn anything from 2000, an issue like this certainly isn't going to sway them one way or another.

If you think Kerry is going to act and govern like a Republican, you need to review his political career. He's been one of the most liberal members of Congress and has been supporting liberal issues for decades.

Without the middle, you cannot win the Presidency. If all Kerry does is play to the left, he'll lose. Guaranteed.

Kerry was NEVER going to chose a Republican VP. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for people to understand. This entire incident was done for no reason other than to appeal to moderate and swing voters. Kerry knew full-well that McCain would never accept the nomination, so he was perfectly safe in making it look like McCain was really being considered.

In doing so, Kerry gets to look like he's willing to cross party lines in the "interests of bringing us together as a nation", but it's a safe thing to do, because the VP was never going to be McCain.

[MoonRiver]

49. I hope you're happy then when pro-choice is a thing of the past,

after * gets another 4.

[zoeyfong]

117. Given that Kerry supported the war and tried to enlist a repug as VP,

what makes you think choice would be safe in a kerry administration? If you're taking it on "faith," you're in the wrong party.

[shivaji]

94. you are right and I agree

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. You can relax

Whether or not it was a good or bad idea to consider McCain for VP, and whether or not it was actually considered, McCain will not be on the ticket. Not going to happen. Now it is only a matter of dueling spins.

[TexasSissy]

125. Disagree. McCain not conservative. Environmentalist.

McCain believes there is global warming, and he's an environmentalist (compared with the current admin.). He has joined and worked with Kerry on environmental issues, in contravention of the Republican platform. McCain is the closest thing to being an Independent, but who isn't, that there is.

But McCain IS a Republican. Make no mistake about that. But not a conservative. Make no mistake about that.

Independents would fly to the polls in record numbers to vote for him. Actually, I'd consider voting for him, as well, and I'm a registered Democrat (albeit moderate).

[Hippo_Tron]

128. McCain actually is a conservative, but not a neocon...

He believes in responsible spending and not giving away tax cuts to the rich. As far as social issues go, I think he's moderate.

[incapsulated]

10. Sorry, no sale

That may be his intention, but by asking McCain, he just made the eventual Democrat VP look like chopped liver.

Playing around with the media was one thing. Actually offering him the position was another. If Kerry was so sure he would say no, why ask him and have the fact that he rejected you make the news?? How does this make Kerry look like anything but a weak and desperate Democrat?

This was stupid.

[boxster]

13. He didn't ask McCain to be VP.

That's an important distinction that too many people are missing, apparently because they haven't actually read or seen the news accounts of the story.

Kerry asked him ONLY if he would agree to being considered as a possible candidate. He did NOT ask McCain to be VP.

[incapsulated]

15. What is the DIFFERENCE?

"Would you consider marrying me?"

Did I just propose to you? Yes? No? Well, tell me what I said.

I just proposed to you in a way that I can squirm out of is all.

Asking to "consider" is just a way for him to deny that he asked him outright. This is a semantic game.

Edit: It is also the line he gives EVERYONE that he is considering, because he hasn't chosen yet. He can't say "Will you be my VP?" until he has made his final decision. He is asking if you want to be on his short list.

[emulatorloo]

19. Bad Analogy - considering 5 people for a job position

a marriage proposal is diff than VP proposal.

I can ask 5 guy/women if they will allow me to consider them as VP, and everybody understands that they are up for a job position.

If I ask 5 women if they will consider marrying me, five women will be very mad at me.

Wife and Job are not the same.

[boxster]

22. If you don't see the difference, I probably can't help you. But, I'll try.

Here's the difference. If you asked me to marry you, knowing for an absolute fact that I am going to say no, then you are risking nothing in asking, as you already know the outcome. You can then ask either as a joke or to make a point or to put on a show.

For a putting-on-a-show example (the most appropriate comparison to the Kerry/McCain soap opera), if your parents are nagging you to get married, you can ask me to marry you in their presence - you already know that I'm going to say no - so you can ask me confident that I'll say no and your parents will quit nagging you.

You probably don't realize it, but you answered your own question in another way. Kerry was asking McCain if he would be considered(put on the short list, as you said); he did NOT ask McCain to be VP. Kerry asked it already knowing the answer and already knowing that the base would vote for him regardless and the middle would consider it an act of reaching out across the chasm that so obviously exists between the right and the left.

Bottom line - there is no downside, except for people looking for an ideological angel. This is politics, and Kerry knows exactly what he's doing.

He didn't get this far without understanding that the middle is what wins elections, and that the base is safe. In fact, it's safer this election season solely because liberals are desperate to get Bush out of the WH.

If you want ideological perfection or if you want a candidate that isn't going to play political games, you're not going to find that in ANY candidate, because it's impossible to do either and win a race like the presidency. They ALL play the game. Kerry's just better at it than most.

[incapsulated]

25. Oh, I understand quite well

If Kerry was so sure that he would be rejected, he's proven himself to be less politically astute than I imagined.

The headline being that "McCain rejected Kerry's overtures" is going to be played on by the rethug media for all it's worth. It's going to be brought up at the convention when he trots out his Democratic running mate, it's going to be used to give yet another reason for progressives who are on the fence about Kerry to stay home.

He is hoping this will make him look like a uniter, reaching across the aisle. I am afraid that the media/republicans are going make it look like he has no identity and is willing to do anything for votes.

[boxster]

28. Well, sorry to say, it worked for Bush. And of course Kerry knew.

Bush pulled the "change the tone in Washington" crap. Regardless of all of the proof to the contrary, people still bought the MESSAGE and not the media spin.

They're still buying it today.

Come on - how could Kerry NOT know that it was going to be rejected? Of course he knew. Hell, everyone on Earth knew.

If they didn't know, they weren't paying attention. This was a dead issue from day one, yet the media (and WAY too many DUers) kept trumpeting it from the rooftops. It got tons of press even though McCain has consistently said that it wasn't going to happen.

It's not the rejection that's important here. It's the offer being made. The appearance of being able to bridge the political chasm is WAY more important than the fact that the offer was rejected.

The rejection was a given. Everybody knew that.

[incapsulated]

29. Bush ran to his BASE

With a few carefully chosen slogans thrown out for the swing votes: "Compassionate Conservative", "No Child Left Behind" etc. etc. He certainly wasn't courting Democrats by offering them his VP, he chose the most conservative he could find. To please his base.

It was a very traditional campaign in that sense. Run to your base, nod to the swing voters, solidify your identity.

Kerry seems to be running all over the place, here. It's no wonder people find it hard to get a "feel" for who he is, at least according to polling. This is a problem that this little episode did nothing to help.

[boxster]

31. Sorry, but that's incorrect.

"Compassionate Conservative" is most certainly NOT courting his base. Who is the historically "compassionate" party? It's certainly not conservatives - compassion is about the furthest thing from their agenda.

"Compassion" would be a trait of the Democratic Party. Bush stole it to solely to appeal to moderates and swing voters.

Re: No Child Left Behind. Again, a historically-Democratic issue: education. Again, trolling for middle-of-the-road voters.

In the 2000 election, Bush co-opted every traditional Democratic issue he could: education, health care, social security, etc., etc. In fact, "true" conservatives were very concerned because they objected to all of the new social programs that Bush claimed to be interested in. They were afraid that he was really a moderate, because he RAN as a moderate.

It wasn't until AFTER the election that he swung hard right. He yanked funding for NCLB and Head Start, cut off tons of social programs, and started a phony war. He kept NONE of his campaign promises - promises that were made solely to pull in moderates and swing voters.

And, it undeniably worked.

[incapsulated]

45. Re-Read Please

I said that he used those slogans carefully to attract swing-voters, not to attract his base!

He did everything he could to shore up his base, and I'm basing that on everything I've read/seen about that election. He did a lot that you and I did not see, because we are not his base. The Cheney VP was key, but so where his local overtures to the Christian right all over the country. The base knew who he was. The clueless bought the slogans.

[boxster]

50. Well, the subject of your posting was "Bush ran to his base"

which is incorrect. He ran FROM his base to the center and even a little left of center.

He most certainly didn't pander to his base. He gave very little lip service to the base because he KNEW they were going to vote for him anyway. Even so, there were still myriad articles written about conservatives being very wary of him because of all of the new spending crap he was proposing.

The fact is, he scared the base. They were afraid that he was too moderate. They voted for him anyway, because they assumed that he would shift right after the election.

It's EXACTLY the same thing with Kerry. If you review his political career, you'll see that he's one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Do you really think he's going to make some huge ideological change when he gets into office?

Of course he won't. He's playing to the center, just like every other presidential candidate always does. When he wins, he'll shift back to his normal ideology. Just like every other recent president has.

[incapsulated]

53. I disagree

What you viewed as "playing to the center" was nothing more than a few slogans. All you have to do is read DU to know how much the "base" pays a hell of a lot more attention to the meat and details than what is spouted on campaign commercials. The right is no different. They know the difference between bullshit you have to say to get elected, and what you are really about. The choice of Cheney was specifically tailored to allay any concerns his base might have had listening to his slogans. It said, in effect: "don't worry, it's all bullshit. This is who I am".

[boxster]

55. You're making my point.

The point is: the base is a given. Kerry is a liberal. He's been a liberal for 30 years. Anyone who bothers to pay attention knows that he's not going to make a radical shift to the right.

In fact, the primaries are perfect proof that the base is out there and that it knows Kerry for what he is. His campaign was dead, yet when it came time to vote, who'd people vote for? Mr. Liberal.

Therefore, stuff like the McCain charade is safe where the base is concerned. They KNOW that Kerry is a liberal. They KNOW that McCain was never *really* being considered for VP. The know that Kerry isn't going to suddenly turn into a conservative.

Kerry wants the swing voters thinking when they get to the ballot box. He wants them thinking that he's more likely to be able to get something accomplished, because he's willing to step across party lines. He's talking to the people who are sick of the political divides in our country.

But, it's all a charade. He had no intention of following through, nor did McCain ever have any intention of seriously considering crossing party lines.

Anyone who was paying attention knew this was dead from day one. McCain has said from day one that he has no intention of considering the VP slot. Yet, people keep harping on it (people on DU were particularly rabid about it- why, I can't comprehend), just like they're doing now.

The bottom line is that the base is safe. If people want to waste their votes on someone else because of a complete misunderstanding of this issue, fine. If they think that Kerry is likely to ditch 30 years of fighting for liberal causes, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

[incapsulated]

62. "The Base Is Safe" That's what Gore thought

Dangerous assumption at this point, I think. This election is so close it's a statistical tie. If he loses even %1.0 of the base who just stay home in the swing states, he could lose it all.

The base voted for Kerry because he was the frontrunner after NH, not because he was a flaming liberal. And certainly not because he generated such grassroots excitement. He can't count on that. He can only count on the hatered of Bush in the base right now.

No politician should ever take anything for granted. It's just not pragmatic.

I don't see this as making independents or swing voters warm to Kerry. This assumes they want him to move to the right, which I don't think is anything anyone can prove, or they feel some great need for "unity" which I've been hearing for decades with little proof. These same people voted for Bush, who threw stupid slogans at them, but would jump off a bridge before he would ask a Democrat to "consider" being his running mate, and nobody expected him to, either. What the polls do say is that they view Kerry's negatives as: undefined, flip-flopper. Which is how the rethugs are going to play this, imho.

[boxster]

66. Gore ran the worst campaign in recent memory.

The election was Gore's to win. He ignored one of the best campaigners of our lifetime - Bill Clinton - and ignored states that he thought were cakewalks. His campaign was ineffectual and mismanaged.

Secondly, there is no point in comparing 2000 and 2004, because this is not the same world it was in 2000. Kerry is running a much smarter campaign than Gore ran, and Bush is losing support thanks to myriad scandals. Right now, it is most certainly not the 1% race you claim it to be. Kerry has solid leads (outside the margin of error) in the LA Times, Gallup, CBS News, and Time/CNN polls.

More and more people are expecting a big Kerry win, if not a landslide.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18699

If you really think Kerry is taking the base for granted, you're just not paying attention. You're buying into all of the Republican hype, just like way too many other people here on DU. Every speech of Kerry's focuses on core liberal issues. Not to mention that his entire career PROVES that he will fight for traditional Democratics issues.

"The base voted for Kerry because he was the frontrunner after NH"

Wrong. Kerry's momentum was in full swing from day one. You don't win nearly 40% of the vote in IA and NH without the base voting for you. Exit polls clearly showed that the base was voting for Kerry immediately, contrary to the claims of the pundits and supporters of the other candidates.

This is politics, and anything goes. If liberals can't see the difference between Kerry and Bush and stay home out of spite or out of a misguided belief that Kerry isn't ideologically pure, they deserve whatever fate they receive.

This is not the time for ideological bullshit. If we as a party are so wishy-washy that we can't even support a candidate who, despite his faults, is light-years better than the alternative, we deserve to lose.

[zoeyfong]

76. OMG. Dream on. The only difference now is that Bush has a well-

known (and dismal) record, and there is no 'ABC' rallying cry for repugs. Now, this could well be enough to allow Kerry to win, but his campaign sucks; dem leaders and dem voters have shown themselves to be the spineless, eqivocating wimps repugs always said they were.

[sangha]

81. And so far, it's working

which really pisses you off.

[zoeyfong]

118. You're right; it pisses me off that DUBYA sets the bar for dems.

But hey, as long as dems win, who cares how low the bar is.

[boxster]

86. ABC?

Try ABK.

Kerry is our candidate or haven't you been paying attention?

Apparently the latter.

Kerry is doing quite well - he has solid leads in many of the major polls. His candidacy is doing just fine, thanks.

Let me guess - he beat your candidate in the primary, didn't he?

[zoeyfong]

119. I said that repugs no longer have ABC to rally them. Try reading.

[boxster]

121. Nice try.

But there was no 'ABC' when Gore ran, either.

[Nimble_Idea]

105. sorry, Kerry won the Liberal vote in the primaries

time and time again, it was the Liberals who voted for Kerry......it was Edwards and Clark who got a sizeable portion of the independents and right votes... After his wins in IA and NH, then it became a landslide. In IA and NH, the libs chose John Kerry....

eos.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Disagree.

Bush moderated his message in 2000. A compliant press allowed him to get away with it, too. If he had run on his accomplishments, he'd have been toast.

Kerry is smart to court the Republicans and Independents. Committed Republicans and Democrats are pretty evenly split....it's the middle that's in play. Kerry will grab the majority of those undecideds and some of the Republicans. I don't see Bush grabing any Democrats, although some far Left Democrats might be tempted to voter Nader.....hopefully they'll come to their senses before November.

[LandOLincoln]

68. I nominate this post for the DU Political Smarts Hall of Fame.

Oh, there isn't one? Well, why not?? :bounce:

[Protagoras]

16. So where did Kerry *ask* McCain for this again?

Unnamed sources quoting something that Kerry and McCain deny that might of maybe kinda sorta happened a month or more ago suddenly appearing in the headline as if it were 1) True 2)Current news.

This is what makes the job easy for Drudge and Rove...

We have no investigative reporting in this country...question everything.

[incapsulated]

17. Has Kerry denied this?

Last I heard, there was "no comment" about this particular story.

[boxster]

32. He doesn't have to deny it, nor will he.

Everyone already knew the outcome of this story. McCain's position was a known factor nearly from day one. This should be a surprise to no one.

[lapfog_1]

33. Jesus - read the f'ing story

IF anything was asked, it was "would you like to be considered"
(meaning, that along with probably 5 or 8 others, be put into a
pool of folks that Kerry can think about who to offer the job to).

This is the type of job that KERRY, as presidential candidate, DOES
NOT want to ask the direct question until he

a) KNOWS the candidate will say YES

b) KNOWS the candidate has no skeletons (like was in a mental
health institution)

c) KNOWS the candidate will serve the campaign well (win more votes
with X than without X)

d) KNOWS the candidate might actually make a good president someday.

So, Kerry asked if McCain would want to be considered is a LONG ways
from "Hey, you're my first pick, everyone else is chopped liver".
Not only that, but Kerry MIGHT have asked him out of friendship.
As disturbing as it may be to some of you here (and to freepers
and KKKarl Rove) Kerry and McCain actually like and respect each
other... so Kerry may have asked him to be CONSIDERED out of respect
for their friendship.

Just saying. We don't really know for sure that any of this happened.

[incapsulated]

48. Oh, please

He asked McCain if he wanted to be considered out of "friendship"??

Knowing the media would pick it up and say he was "rejected"?

As for your other comments, I've already addressed those several times.

[lapfog_1]

57. Well, I've read all of the interchanges with other DUers

where you claim to have covered everything...

and you failed. Your missing the points (possibly intentionally)
that everyone else is making. Kerry did NOT offer the VP to McCain.
He MAY have asked if McCain wanted to be considered. Its an important
difference.

Would Kerry ask out of friendship AND RESPECT (part that you left out)?
I don't know. I do know (because I've founded two startups now) that
I seek out those to join me because first and foremost, I trust them.
I don't know that much about the Kerry/McCain relationship, but there
are a lot of reasons that Kerry might have to asking if McCain is
interested. Friendship might well be one of them.

Anyway, vote for whoever you want. I don't care. I'm voting for
Kerry even if he picks Tom Delay as his VP (though that would cause
me to wonder about his judgment). But I KNOW Bush's judgment.
End of story.

[LandOLincoln]

34. Incap, what makes you so sure this "story" originated in the

Kerry camp?

Looks to me like Rove trying to get a leg up on the next news cycle, now that the Ronniefest is...ahhh...dead and buried, and using the old McCain rumors to do it (& be comforted that it's taken the loathesome SOB this long to come up with a way to spin the McCain as VP meme in their favor).

So saying, I'm obviously disagreeing with Will Pitt and Jai and a lot of people who are more politically savvy that I am, but still I have to ask myself: who benefits most from this story at this time and being spun this way...?

I rest my case.

[incapsulated]

47. Because..

He hasn't denied it. Or had his people comment on it. He wants it out there.

Until otherwise, what else can I think?

[LandOLincoln]

54. Kerry's too canny a pol to fall for the old Lyndon Johnson "let the son

of a bitch deny it" stunt. Besides, McCain's people have already denied that Kerry ever offered McCain the VP spot. Why should Kerry himself dignify this crap with a response?

[Gloria]

14. However, if the "target audience" becomes the "target audience" of the

GOP spin about how MCCAIN REJECTS KERRY as the AP/CNN headline blares,
then what? Let's see, the whole talk radio echo, FAUX, CNN, newpaper headlines, pundits......all pounding away that McCain REJECTED Kerry...and they won't give a hoot about the "nuance."

Let's see, Gore's lying about the internet.......McCain REJECTS Kerry...

Furthermore, this might not be a 'deliberate' genius stroke move by the Kerry campaign. I think something else is going on, with all those stories from that Boston reporter...I'm highly suspicious of the timing and rehashing of this story....

[boxster]

26. I disagree.

People aren't as swayed by headlines as we assume they are. Regardless of the media spin, voters, especially independents and middle-of-the-roaders, will see this as an attempt to "mend fences" and will see it as a positive thing.

Don't underestimate the power of that message. Showing bi-partisanship or non-partisanship at a time when we as a people are more partisan than ever before sends a powerful message.

In fact, Bush did it in 2000, and it worked wonders for him. Remember "change the tone in Washington"? People just ate that BS up, and they STILL buy it today, regardless of the fact that everything he's ever done has been partisan.

Not everyone buys into the media hype. I'm not sure why people on DU are so quick to do so. I've seen five different people claim that this proves Kerry is "desperate", blah, blah.

He's certainly not desperate. He knows exactly what he's doing.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

73. McCain has been "rejecting" Kerry for weeks on end

The stories have continued in spite of McCain's repeated denials of interest. What's seemingly new now is it appears the Kerry and McCain have formalized the "rejection" in an amiable way, with this old news story drawing attention back to Kerry, as the "cutting edge" candidate displaying true bipartisanship. Sounds good to me. MKJ

[Forkboy]

18. Kerry doesn't seem to care what some of us think on a lot of things

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[boxster]

24. So, is that enough to get you to vote for Bush?

Honestly? Is it enough to spend another four years with Bush?

I mean, come on - let's be serious here. Bush is evil and he's about as right-wing as it gets. Can you honestly tell me that Kerry - one of the most liberal members of Congress - will lose liberal votes because he makes an overture to a well-liked member of the opposite party that he KNOWS will never be accepted?

Edit: typo

[Kanary]

38. My thought exactly, Forkboy

[Scoopie]

20. Then... um...

he DOES care what I think, so I should keep posting... maybe?
I'm an independent in a swing state who loves McCain.
But I would vote for Kerry anyway (if he doesn't pick one of the bland three for VP), but I STILL wouldn't vote for Shrub!

[boxster]

23. Yes, I originally meant to qualify my statement...

with a statement like "if you're in the liberal base", but I decided against it. Call it poetic license, but yes, you're right - he certainly does care about what you think.

And, of course, he really does care what the liberal base thinks, but he understands that the base is pretty safe. He knows that the middle is where the election stands, and a show of bipartisanship is a powerful message.

[WI_DEM]

27. you're wrong

the democratic base is not wrapped up. I know many democrats and independent progressives who are not going to vote for Kerry or Bush due to the Iraq war. The signals that Kerry has been sending regarding wanting a conservative republican as VP, saying there will be no limtus test on the judiciary, and on other issues is not reasurring to many on the left--yes even people who have voted democratic all there lives. I'm voting for Kerry so please don't misunderstand my intentions, but there is distonent out there among the troops.

[boxster]

30. The only place the Democratic base isn't wrapped up is DU.

And DU is not indicative of the "real" world. If it was, Kerry certainly wouldn't be the nominee. Hell, on DU, people actually think that the primaries are still on and that someone other than Kerry could be nominated at the convention.

No offense, but your example is somewhat irrelevant in this conversation. If they already weren't going to vote for Bush or Kerry because of the war, is this issue going to change their minds? Nope.

I understand what you're saying, but I can't say that I really understand how people come to those decisions.

This choice is so simple. Bush or Kerry or throw your vote away, because a vote for anyone else is nothing but vanity under the guise of ideology. A vote for anyone else in an election this important to the future of our country is meaningless in the big picture unless it happens to help an idiot like Bush win the White House, i.e. Nader in 2000.

And, ANYONE who thinks that Kerry, faults and all, is anywhere near Bush on the Mr. Evil scale is ignoring reality and is ignoring Kerry's entire political career. Not to mention the past four years.

[JohnLocke]

35. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! KERRY DOESN'T MEET MY ABSURD DEMANDS!

I demand a president with superhuman powers, such as strength, agility, and the capacity to fly! In addition, I demand a president who will supply the world with food! And a pony! That, too.

[madfloridian]

37. And a Republican for VP, since there are no more good Democrats.

I guess.

Don't worry, we will vote for him. I just don't see why he can't find a decent Democrat.

On edit before I get slammed.....I don't think Dean should be VP. I really don't care...should be a Democrat. McCain is not pro-choice, and he was hawkish on the war.

[JohnLocke]

40. McCain is NOT going to be the vice president.

[boxster]

42. Nor was he ever going to be VP for Kerry.

This is all about appearances. Kerry looks like he's reaching across party lines, knowing full well that McCain will never be VP.

The VP was ALWAYS going to be a Democrat.

[madfloridian]

43. Yes, I know that. The whole thread is about that. I know that.

I just feel that if it seems ok to so many to even act this serious about it then our party is forgetting its base.

No, I take that back. They are not forgetting the base. They know we have to vote for whomever they choose. That is what bothers me. This pretense that the base does not matter.

We do matter, a lot. To even play word games about having a VP who is anti-choice and so hawkish is not a good thing.

We will vote for Kerry, we would like to be enthusiastic. But the vote counts just as much.

"Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them."
Howard Dean, 2003

[boxster]

41. I realize that this point is difficult to get across...

but my point here is that McCain was NEVER going to be VP, and Kerry and McCain both fully understood that.

So, Kerry could be completely safe in making it appear as though he was seriously considering McCain for VP, when he and McCain both knew that that was never going to happen. It's appearances and not actions that are important here. Kerry appears to court a very popular member of the opposing party, and McCain gets some (more) face time.

To independents and swing voters, Kerry *looks* like the uniter Bush claimed he would be. The difference is that Kerry actually does something that reinforces that appearance with the McCain thing.

I think it's win/win. Arguably, the only bad thing I see in the whole situation is that McCain probably got more attention than he should have.

At the same time, though, Kerry looks like he's reaching across party lines, hopefully impressing swing voters.

The VP was always going to be a Democrat.

[LandOLincoln]

70. McCain was never going to be VP. Close friends Kerry and McCain

--who both loathe *--have been having a wicked good time with the McCain as VP thingy for months now, and for obvious reasons.

But this one--I'll say it again: I don't think this was Kerry, or any Dem. I think this is Rove, making sure the first post-Ronniefest news cycle is as damaging to Kerry and the Dems as possible.

Y'all are being played--and you're giving Karl his twisted jollies in spades. Stop it, and stop it now.

[boxster]

91. I have to disagree.

For one, all of the articles I've read about this have said that the sources for this "leak" were Democratic "officials".

That leads to the Kerry camp, I would think.

Example:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2004/jun/12/061209314.html

[Armstead]

44. It is stupid on a pragmatic level

Bush has made this a contest between himself and Liberalism, as exemplified by Kerry.

Bush is simultaneously painting Kerry as a flip-flopper wiuth no principles.

It's an odd strategy on the surface -- but it could be successful.

Independents will look at Kerry and wonder if he does have any core principles. If they decide he is a flip flopping liberal, or a flip flopping person with no principles, they'll say "Why botehr?" and either vote for Bush or stay at home.

IMO the only way Kerry can get out of that box is to be a principled liberal, and stop trying to blur the damn lines. Give the independents a real choice, and defend it.

[incapsulated]

51. I have come to agree with this POV

Being everything to everybody makes you nothing to nobody except those of us who are ABB.

Bush wins respect, deserved or not, because people view him as a "straight shooter", someone who "stands by his priciples" and "means what he says". It may be bullshit to us, but in this respect, we really don't matter. His image among swing voters does.

[boxster]

52. Well, if this is Bush vs. Liberalism, I'd have to beg to differ with your

conclusion.

If that's the case, this whole McCain thing should do a pretty convincing job of dispelling any notion that Kerry's too liberal for swing voters, wouldn't you think?

You basically just made my point. The entire reason for this charade was to show swing voters that Kerry can reach across party lines. Not only did he "court" a very popular Republican with no risk whatsoever (McCain was never going to be VP), that same Republican got on TV multiple times and a) defended Kerry's war record, and b) talked about the respect and admiration he has for Kerry.

Sounds like a pretty damn good tradeoff to me, thank you very much. Hmm, another war veteran, a conservative one at that, defends Kerry's war record against attacks by people in his own party, and then he talks about what a great guy Kerry is.

Yeah, that sounds pretty bad for Kerry.

"Give the independents a real choice, and defend it."

Oh, please. No offense, but do you really think that the vast majority of swing voters and independents are going to flock to Kerry if he does nothing to persuade them?

If he runs on purely liberal ideologies, he loses. Guaranteed. If he ignores the middle, as so many people on DU seem to think he should, write off the election.

[union_maid]

56. This election is different

This election is not about the base. It's about The Worst President In US History vs. Someone Who Isn't. It's beyond vital. 2000 was a squandered opportunity and a tragedy, the proportions of which we're only now starting to comprehend. 2004 is a national and international emergency. Kerry will continue to reach across the aisle, and people on the other side of the aisle are reaching back, if only sureptitiously. Outside of elected office more than a few diehard Republicans are becoming swing voters. People who think are thinking of not voting for Bush even if they consider themselves conservatives.

I would love to see a truly liberal agenda pursued and in a different year Kerry would be the man for that job. But we have to get our country back before we can fix it. By getting it back, I specifically mean getting it back from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the people who still not only support them because they're loyal to their party, but those who support their policies in spirit.

[madfloridian]

58. I am not liberal. Don't lose the moderates in the party.

I am a moderate in a very conservative area. Last time in 2002 we heard the same argument...get the swing voters, forget the base...they will come along.

In 2000 the Democrats did not speak out as they should on many issues, saying it had to be done this way. They tried to be enough like Republicans so as not to offend them. When Gore tried becoming a little populist....they chided him.

We just keep trying harder and harder to be like them, and we are ignoring the folks who are the Democratic base. It is taken for granted they will vote for Kerry. Guess what, I know of many here who really think Nader is looking good.

They are tired of this war, and they don't think we should be changing world leaders.

"Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them."
Howard Dean, 2003

[Hippo_Tron]

115. This time is much different than 2002...

In November 2002, Bush's approval ratings were still high from 9/11. People still overwhelmingly supporting the Iraq War because they hadn't seen the consequences of it yet.

[boxster]

69. And there's nothing stopping Kerry from moving towards the middle

to win the election and then pursuing the same goals he's pursued for 30 years once he's President.

Every President in recent memory has done the same thing.

[madfloridian]

71. We should be moving toward the middle from the right.

That was Dean's goal. He said that often. I don't see Kerry doing that, and that concerns me. He is sounding more rightish.

"Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them."
Howard Dean, 2003

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. That was Dean's goal, but since Kerry's positions are so much more liberal

than Dean's, it doesn't really make much sense for Kerry.

[boxster]

89. Agreed. I'd like to see this Kerry conservative agenda and record

everyone keeps talking about!

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

96. Then he is changing his policies as he goes.

I do agree with you that Dean is a centrist.....but he saw through the Iraq invasion, the NCLB bill, and he stood up and spoke out about the horrible Medicare bill ages ago. Kerry's idea to reduce corporate taxes further bother me as well. I did not expect that.

Yes, Dean is a centrist. He governed as one. Actually I am pretty centrist in some areas myself. However, Kerry's defense recently of his war vote in a Salon interview, and his stances about Cuba and Venezuela bother me.

I know it does not matter what I think. I will vote for him. However you are speaking of his trying to move the country right from the left.....I disagree. I think he is moving toward Bush views.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. Please document your false claim.

Not with some bullshit characterization, but with an actual refererence to one policy position that Kerry has changed on since he announced his candidacy.


What is laughable is simultaneously admitting that 'Dean is a centrist' and then somehow trying to claim that your mischaracterizations of Kerry turn him into a conservative.

It's total bullshit on it's face, and the kind of divisive dishonesty that plays right into the hands of the Bushies.

[boxster]

85. I find it hilarious that Dean supporters have consistently claimed

that Dean was such a leftie. The guy was a fiscal conservative. Liberal stances on a couple of issues do not a liberal make.

Kerry is, and has always been, more liberal than Dean. Always. Claiming that Dean was going to miraculously move us way left is ludicrous as is claiming that Kerry is going to pursue a conservative agenda.

In fact, it's just ignorant. Kerry has been one of the most liberal members of Congress his entire political career. Expecting him to suddenly veer right is ridiculous.

This is an election. You play to the only people who really have any say in the outcome - the middle. The bases are solid. If you want to win, you have to pander to the middle.

Is that what we'd prefer? Pandering to the middle? Of course not. Is it a political reality? You better believe it.

[madfloridian]

100. Could you find some posts saying we think he is a leftie? No way.

He governed very conservatively in VT. Most of us support him because he is very aware of the ideology that is driving this country right now.....and he is speaking out about it. It is that he is pragmatic and speaks to issues.

Dean is the middle, and if you read the blog or ever read the forums....most of us supporters are not really liberal. They just want our country to be accountable.

Dean's only liberalism was the social issues....that all are equal and deserve fair treatment.

Why do you keep calling us all lefties?

[boxster]

102. Excuse me while I laugh.

Where did I say you were a lefty? Uh, that would be nowhere. I said that many Dean supporters portrayed DEAN as a lefty.

They were portraying him, particularly early in the campaign, as left of just about everyone from Kerry to Clark to Edwards to Lieberman. Later, everyone else was "Bush Lite", which Dean himself spouted on several occassions.

So, not only were his supporters claiming he was left of everyone else, DEAN WAS CLAIMING THE SAME THING.

To be fair and to be slightly more accurate, Dean and many of his supporters were proclaiming the other candidates were right of Dean, which is a laugh in itself. I don't think there was anyone in the primary race that was right of Dean.

Not to mention all of the people trumpeting him as the liberal savior, saving us from the evil Democratic leadership - those conservative, right-wing bastards! Take the party back!

Back where? To the right?

What I do find a little bizarre, however, is that you claim you supported a centrist, yet you're worried that Kerry - light-years more liberal than Dean - isn't liberal enough.

Uh, ok. That makes perfect sense. :eyes:

So, yeah for the NRA and yeah for fiscal conservatism, but damn, Kerry and his 30-year liberal record are just too far right for me. Hmm. He's just too "rightish", to use your word.

Frankly, it sounds like an extended case of sour grapes. My candidate didn't win either, but I got over it months ago. Maybe you should try to do the same.

Or if you are going to criticize Kerry, try to pick something a little more realistic than claiming Kerry's a conservative.

[madfloridian]

107. You are just misreading what I wrote.

I am saying that issues are NOT being addressed. I find nothing wrong with being conservative, and I am that way in some ways. I think our country is going to extremes, and it needs to be pointed out every single day......that the emperor has no clothes. None at all..

Read my post again. I think you will see I was defending Dean and not attacking Kerry.

Incidentally, though, I feel Kerry needs to speak out a whole lot more because our country is really in trouble. No one is saying Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, we attacked a country that was no danger to us. No one is saying that our economy is in trouble. The people need to know this. Who is telling them?

Read my post again. Issues are NOT being addressed.

My post:
"He governed very conservatively in VT. Most of us support him because he is very aware of the ideology that is driving this country right now.....and he is speaking out about it. It is that he is pragmatic and speaks to issues.

Dean is the middle, and if you read the blog or ever read the forums....most of us supporters are not really liberal. They just want our country to be accountable.

Dean's only liberalism was the social issues....that all are equal and deserve fair treatment.

Why do you keep calling us all lefties?"

[boxster]

108. Oh, please. That's the same old crap.

He speaks to issues.
He speaks to issues.
He speaks to issues.

Know what? That's about all I ever saw people say about Dean. He speaks to issues, and no one else does. No details, no follow-up. Just "Dean's the only one that speaks to issues" ad infinitum. That was part of his problem - no one ever bothered to provide any PROOF that Dean was the only person talking about issues.

Besides, it's bullshit. If you don't see Kerry speaking about issues, it's because you simply don't want to.

He talks about health care.
He talks about jobs and outsourcing.
He talks about the economy and taxes.
He talks about education.
He talks about the environment.
He talks about foreign policy.
He talks about energy policy.

And myriad other issues.

Or are those only "issues" when Dean speaks about them? Since Dean has the corner on "issues", perhaps you can provide an example of ONE THING that he's discussing that Kerry isn't addressing.

Like it really matters. You seem to want everyone to emulate Dean, but in case you didn't notice, he didn't do terribly well in the primaries. Emulating him probably isn't the best idea in the world. I think Kerry needs to be Kerry, not Dean. It's gotten him this far.

It's not Kerry's fault if you're being willfully ignorant about his campaign.

[madfloridian]

109. Oh good grief.

I told you we donated to Kerry, or least I have said so here many times. I told you we are voting for him.

Now, what do you want from me? Iowa selected Kerry for us. I will vote for him. Most of us never got the chance to vote in the primaries. Do you want me never to say anything at all about Dean ever? Do you want me not to criticize Kerry, ever?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-14.htm

[boxster]

111. No, I'd like to see something more than vague accusations about

Kerry "not moving toward the middle from the right".

That's pretty difficult considering that he's already LEFT OF CENTER.

He's been a liberal for 30 years, but hey - all of a sudden, he's a right-winger. Sure.

Boy, and we sure wish he'd get around to discussing some issues. He must be wasting hours a day talking about his kids or something.

You then provide nothing - NOTHING - that backs your assertion other than the same old "Howard did it. Why can't Kerry?" which says exactly nothing. Not to mention that Kerry is a hell of a lot less "rightish" than Howard.

THAT is why I find your claims a little bewildering. You're a moderate who supported a centrist, but you're criticizing a career liberal for being too far right. Explain that one.

If you want to make claims that Kerry is suddenly right of center, provide some proof. Otherwise, fair or not, all it looks like is sour grapes.

[makhno]

114. Some examples of the man's voting record

Kerry's voting record

The man might've marched against the Vietnam war, but so did David Horowitz.

[ibegurpard]

60. It makes no one look good but McCain.

Which is kind of the point, from his perspective. I think the Democrats are fools to have been pushing this, particularly given the reports that have come out today.

[cyclezealot]

61. Remember Clinton's triangulation with Gingrich.

It cost us millions of jobs with NAFTA and screwing the poor..Kerry does not care what we think.? Hell with him...This McCain talk..McCain has no more appreciation of Civil Liberties than Bush.
This talk of McCain is true..I know he lost my wife's vote.Not so sure about mine. Kerry , don't take us for granted..
Hell. Anyway...We are getting close to retirement...We can soon be in Europe, if things go as is...You can live with your triangulator.
And winning independents is not the way to win...Winning over those who feel, "Don't vote, it only encourages them" crowd-is the way to win.

[cyclezealot]

65. Had effect I expected.

Woke my wife up when went to bed..Had the effect I expected..Woke her out of the sleep...She said WTF is wrong with that idiot.'
JFK...We do not have to vote for you..
This mornings Los Angesles Times Headlines carried the story. Said no once but 7 times JFK has asked McCain..Crazy.
Seven times rejected..At the dance, I never thought it was wise to ask more than once..
Plus, background research will show McCain has every bit as right wing repug connections as does Dubya..And we expect Kerry to make progress for the American people. ?

[incapsulated]

63. And Another Thing! The Last and Most Important Thing!

:)

If Kerry believes that making overtures to McCain makes him appealing to Independents..

Then how does being rejected by McCain make him look?

Think about it.

Because that is the headline, that is the story. Not: "Kerry is a unifier" or "Kerry isn't that liberal, you know":

McCain Is Said to Tell Kerry He Won't Join

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly and personally asked Senator John McCain, the independent-minded Arizona Republican, to consider being his running mate, but Mr. McCain has refused, people who have spoken to both men said Friday.

Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, made his first direct overtures to Mr. McCain about three weeks after locking up the Democratic nomination in March and approached him again, in person or by telephone, as many as seven times, as recently as last week, according to one person who has discussed the issue with both.

"It was always artfully phrased, but he asked him on several occasions to serve as his running mate," the individual said. "He'd say, `I don't want to formally ask because I don't want to be formally rejected, but having said that, would you do it?' or `I need you to do it,' or `I want you to do it.' "

"It was always phrased in such a way as to give both men plausible deniability," the individual added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/politics/campaign/12MCCA.html?hp

How does this NYT article make Kerry look, now?

[boxster]

67. Kerry being "rejected" shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.

Did it really surprise you?

It shouldn't have. McCain said it wasn't going to happen from day one and it was pretty obvious why Kerry was doing this.

This was no surprise.

[BootinUp]

112. I agree

but, I am just trying not to think about it. :eyes:

[realcountrymusic]

64. Bra-freakin-vo!

This is about winning. Winning is important. Democrats seem to forget this sometimes. After 2000, I for one want to win by any means necessary. The world is counting on us.

Go John K. Go!

RCM

[MontecitoDem]

72. Boxter -

thanks for this thread and your reasoned responses to all the squawking.

Damn, DU needs to GET OVER itself.

You can't govern without winning. End of story.

All the blah blah about "I don't feel inspired" by Kerry is just ridiculous. If the base doesn't come out and vote for Kerry, WE DESERVE another 4 years of Bush!

Images of handwringing, ineffectual liberals dancing through my head this morning, as I go out to register more of us.

[boxster]

87. "You can't govern without winning."

Damn right. It's counterproductive to be demanding all of these monumental changes in the way Kerry is running his campaign.

We need to WIN the fricking thing first. Only THEN can we affect change.

[zoeyfong]

75. So why don't repugs ever offer their VP slot to a democrat?

Face it, the democratic party has totally abandoned its base, and btw, Kerry will *not* be getting all democratic votes in Nov. But, you say, there are more votes in the middle; so why don't repugs have to abandon *their* base to get the votes in the middle?

[boxster]

88. Bush did pander to the middle.

You obviously don't remember the 2000 election.

Remember "Compassionate Conservatism"?

Remember Bush stealing all of the traditionally Democratic issues: education, social security, etc.?

Gee, why do you suppose he did that?

He was targeting swing voters and the middle. In fact, he did it so much that hardcore conservatives were worried that he was moving too far left.

But, guess what? They voted for him anyway.

Edit: fixed subject line - my answer pertains to Bush targeting the middle to win the election, as Kerry is obviously attempting to do now.

[greatauntoftriplets]

90. What Democrat did Bush offer the vice presidency to?

He put Dick Cheney in charge of the process. What Democrat did Cheney want for VP????

And if you believe that * was stealing Democratic ideals in 2000......

I saw through him like a window screen that lacked a screen.

[boxster]

92. Sorry, my response was more in answer to the response and not the subject.

I'll fix that.

We saw through the BS overtures that Bush made, but unfortunately, a lot of the American public bought it completely.

In fact, more than 40% of them are STILL buying it today.

[Capn Sunshine]

77. where your logic fails

"The (D) base will vote for Kerry"

I suppose it's all in how you define "base" but the erosion here seems pretty continuous at this point.

Making overtures to a republican demonstrates that their only interest is in losing this election, by discouraging the "base"

[sangha]

78. your logic fails immediately

the erosion here seems pretty continuous ...

There's no erosion. The facts show that the Dems support is more cohesive than it has been in decades. Turnout at the primaries went through the roof. In North Dakota, they moved the primaries up earlier into a colder part of the year (in an area that's freezing to begin with) and even more people showed up to vote than had shown up four years earlier even though it was much warmer then.

Some erosion.

[sangha]

79. More info on the "erosion"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x546854

It's seems it's Nadir that's seeing the erosion

[Capn Sunshine]

80. refusal to accept the facts does not make one's life complete

Were one to ever venture outside one's self imnposed echo chamber and see what is happening all around them, the realities of the defection of the progressives on the left would become apparent.

If the Kerry campaign is doing so well, one woiuld have no fear of the Nader movement, yet that same movement is attacked viciously by many , and attempts are contantly being made to deny Nader ballot access. Is this the action of a campaign that has nothing to fear?

I guess the apparent disconnect here is too overwhelming to address.

It's possible to do less badly than the other guy, but to depend on the other guy's continued failures as a strategy is intellectually bankrupt.

[sangha]

82. You should look at the link I just posted

The only erosion going on is with Nadir. In 2000, Nadir's favorables were at 41%. In 2004, they're 11%. From 2000 to 2004, Nadir's unfavorables went up 50%.

More people dislike Nadir, and few like him in 2004. Nadir is eroding.

Step away from the echo chamber. I repeat, step away from the echo chamber!

[sangha]

83. Here are the facts

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/141ycmff.asp

The Nader poll number that has changed significantly from 2000, incidentally, is his favorable/unfavorable rating. In April 2000 Gallup showed Nader with a 41 percent favorable rating and a 20 percent unfavorable rating. But an April 2004 CBS poll shows Nader with only an 11 percent favorable rating and a 31 percent
unfavorable

[madfloridian]

98. Did you read the rest of the article?

SNIP..."All in all, it's not a bad situation for Nader. And yet skeptics like to dismiss his influence this year. They remind us that Nader polled at 6-7 percent up until Election Day 2000, but ended up with less than 3 percent of the national vote. The skeptics miss the point. Nader's less than 3 percent of the national vote in 2000 might have cost Gore the election. So it's no surprise the cognoscenti saw last week's summit as a sign that the Kerry campaign was worried about Nader's influence this year. That Nader is performing about as well as he was at this point in 2000 gives Democrats reason to worry.

I have my doubts about the Weekly Standard being used a source about anything lately. It is pretty right wing...editors are William Kristol and Fred Barnes. Lots more of the very extreme RW there as well, like Krauthammer.

[sangh0]

122. Obviously, you didn't read the thread

We were discussing the so-called "erosion" in Dem support, which has NOTHING to do with Nader's ability to be a spoiler. And please note how they show that Nader's unfavorables have risen (by 50%) while his favorables wer cut almost to a quarter of what they were, but the "unbiased" Standard claims that "Nader is performing about as well as he was at this point in 2000"

I guess low favorables is "about as well" as high favorables.

[Capn Sunshine]

84. I can match your links

there's more evidence out there than just what one WANTS to believe. On this very page are several links showing Nader making progress.

But Nader is a straw man. I'm talking about people who have become so discouraged with the Kerry campaign, they just aren't voting at all.

[sangh0]

123. But you didn't match my links

Your post has no links and not factual information. Just another repitition of your ridiculous claims. The only smart thing I see in your posts is your refusal to back you claims up with some facts.

But Nader is a straw man. I'm talking about people who have become so discouraged with the Kerry campaign, they just aren't voting at all.

More claims, sans facts.

[madfloridian]

97. Do you mean Nader?

?

[boxster]

93. What erosion?

I don't see any erosion. I saw someone that overwhelmingly won the Democratic primary.

Think you can do that without the base? Dream on.

[Capn Sunshine]

95. gets back to the core issue

You don't think of the base the way I do.

[boxster]

99. I'd like to see the proof you have that Kerry is losing the base.

Good luck.

And anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[sangh0]

124. You missed the rhetorical trick

Capn Sunshine says he defines "the base" differently than you do

1) The base is what it is, not what an individual (conveniently) defines it as

2) Capn Sunshine refuses to tell us what he thinks "the base" is.

These two probably explain why the Capn won't explain himself or provide any facts to support his claims

[Bread and Circus]

101. K - and seeing as how he and you don't care....Kerry is an idiot.

I am so glad no one is listening.

P.S. I like Kerry but I think he is an idiot for this whole
McCain thing.

P.S. of P.S. I wouldn't have said anything more on the topic
but this thread has a bullseye on it.

[cyclezealot]

103. Does it not occur to anyone how awful McCain's voting record is?

we have major policy issues with Kerry..Not personality, but issues...Then he buddies up with someone with an abysimal voting record..Then Wonder why we are skeptical. And..Stop getting so hysterical...No one has said we won't vote for Kerry..we know the alternative forces our hand..We 1- Hope Kerry somehow will adhere to positons hold by the majority on this board..(whether you apply commonly accepted positions here and then wonder if Kerry agrees?)that will make him a better candidate.
2. Voicing our skepticism does not say we are traitors..Just honest.Hopefully our criticisms will convince Kerry to reflect his base, which I know think is the majority American position.) Instead of the thread which says - Kerry does not care what you think..Great incentive there.

[boxster]

110. Yes and no.

"Hope Kerry somehow will adhere to positons hold by the majority on this board."

Honestly, I hope not, because this board is NOT indicative of the Democratic Party in general or the Democratic base.

Otherwise, Kerry would never have been the nominee. If the opinions of the Democratic base mirrored those of many on DU, Kerry would lose in November.

Voicing skepticism is perfectly fine. My point here was that this whole McCain charade was not for the benefit of hardcore liberals. It was solely to give independents and third party voters the impression that Kerry can cross the political chasm that so obviously exists.

Nowhere did I say anything about you not voting for Kerry. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the base is going to vote for him regardless, which is why he's targeting the middle.

You cannot win an election with just the Democratic base, which is, in essence, my entire point. You MUST get independents and middle-of-the-roaders to vote for you. The whole McCain thing was targeted to do exactly that.

[JayS]

104. "Kerry doesn't care what you think"

Yeah, I'll agree with this. :)

[LWolf]

116. Ok, but

there is one factor that just doesn't make sense here. Or it needs to be rephrased, or something.

You are suggesting that Kerry is campaigning to appeal to "independents." I would say he is campaigning to appeal to the capricious middle, who don't reliably stick to one party. They aren't necessarily "independent;" they are democrats or republicans who wobble back and forth. The "swing" vote.

I've been an independent most of my life, until the last 18 months, and Kerry isn't campaigning to appeal to me. He's counting on me to vote for him because a vote for GWB is unthinkable; and he's right. He's got my vote. But the consideration of, or the appearance of consideration of, a republican on the ticket doesn't win my confidence. For many independents, the whole reason they will vote for Kerry is to keep republicans out of the WH.

The independent in me is really turned off by the game-playing involved. I'm not talking about Kerry; I mean in politics as a whole. So why am I here at DU, lol? Uou're probably wondering. I'm here to participate in evicting GWB and his supporters out of the WH and congress. Still, I'm not good at playing the game. I'd rather be straightforward. If the McCain thing is a political ploy, I understand it. We sure experienced plenty of that sort of thing in 2000 from GWB. It won't keep me from voting for Kerry. Still, though, it leaves a bad taste.

[sangh0]

126. "Kerry isn't campaigning to appeal to me" - and he's not going to

Presidential campaigns are not about appealing to YOU, YOU, YOU! Maybe you've noticed, but there are millions of people who vote.

He's counting on me to vote for him because a vote for GWB is unthinkable; and he's right. He's got my vote

So you think Kerry should campaign for your vote even though he already has it? Let me guess, you've never been a campaign manager?

For many independents, the whole reason they will vote for Kerry is to keep republicans out of the WH.

As a teacher, you should know that assertions like this ought to have some sort of factual basis. Studies have shown that most independents abhor partisanship, and have little loyalty to either party, so it's unlikely that they are motivated by partisan considerations, such as getting Repukes out of the White House.


Basically, you've lodged a complaint about this, but the only reason you give is how it makes YOU, YOU, YOU, feel. It's like saying the chemotherapy isn't working because it makes the patient feel miserable.

[LWolf]

127. Wow.

I have to say, Sangh0, you've finally done it. You've reduced me to speechlessness, at least in response to whatever point you are trying to make there. I can't think of a single response to what you've posted. It seems incoherent to me. I'm sure you understood what you were saying, but I don't think you understood the point of my post at all. Actually, I don't think you understand my POV on any issue, based on previous experience. It could be misunderstanding, or it could be deliberate; you have an ax to grind and I'm convenient. Or something.

In any case, I know better than to try to explain or clarify anything with you. At this point, I don't think there is anything I could say that you wouldn't find fault with. I'm not going to spend my time at DU fighting with you. It's a waste of my time, if not yours.

:hi:

[WitchWay]

120. how very Machiavellan

so, you're saying that Kerry is using manipulative lying or white-lying in order to "trick" those stupid, gullible independents (I think they are actually more like "moderates" or even "republicans", but hell! it's all the same as long as we can maintain the fascist two party system)...into voting for him? How very honest and also politically astute of John Kerry!