To Kerry supporters - Why do we answer questions

[sandnsea]

Seriously, why do we spend post after post answering every question from the environment to health care to the medal tossing to the IWR? Why don't we just whine "attack, attack, attack" like it appears every other campaign is going to do when questioned? Well, not every other campaign, the Edwards and Kucinich supporters are always willing to answer questions respectfully too. Curious.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I don't attack

I like reading posts that give the candidates' position on various topics. I like reading their speeches and finding out the direction their campaigns are going (by this I mean whether or not they are using matching funds, etc, NOT specualtion on whether they are 'up' or 'down' in some poll). Thank you all DUers who give out information and don't get involved in flame wars.

[La_Serpiente]

2. I don't know

:shrug: I never really had the motivation to do something like that.

Sometimes, I'll post a few things here and there, but I have never really been the one to get into flamefests.

[bearfartinthewoods]

3. because it good practice?

because actually answering questions in a truthful, helpful way is the job of a supporter?

[HFishbine]

4. Because you're intellectually superior?

(only half joking)

[sandnsea]

16. Or politically inferior

"You dirty attacker, you"... seems to work alot better!

Note to mods, I am not calling HFishbine an attacker.

[zulchzulu]

5. Good question

Usually it seems to fall on deaf ears...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Here's what I wrote to Skinner in leiu of Dean/Clark

Kerry's 'lackluster campaign' (Skinner quote)- a self-perpetuating and fulfilling myth

I think this line of reasoning, while on its face seems logical- that he stinks as a campaigner and will stink in the GE- is a psychological trap, based on a prejudice, of which the short analysis goes as follows:

The problem is Kerry often is extremely verbose, and few people want to hear 6 minute answers to complex questions, although sometimes that is indeed what it takes. Dean's success is proof that emotions can play a big part in candidate selection- we hate Bush, and are excited by someone who challenges him, and excited about having someone represent us. The bottom line is- excitement should not be a factor, and I think for a lot of "swing voters", it indeed is not. For those voters- the very ones we need to win- it all comes down to a matter of acceptability in the person and confidence that the candidate will deliver on the issues that matter to them.

Once this prejudice about a candidate's ability to excite is put aside, people such as Kerry and John Edwards begin to look really appealing- they have substantial knowledge of the issues, and solid records to back them up. In Kerry's case, the record and substance are too much to ignore, and he rises to the top of the list. As far as campaigning goes, I have personally found that when in a one on one conversation/interview (such as in a 'talking head' format)- Kerry's very profound knowledge and understanding of the issues comes through very impressivley- as someone here said "I watch him in these formats and I think 'why is it even a contest?'". And it is this very same Kerry who has been criss-crossing Iowa the last few weeks, gaining new and real support as evidenced in the polls there.

So I say, give Kerry a 2nd chance.

also, just read waht Kerry's endorsers say, because they can say it better than I:

http://www.johnkerry.com/endorsements

[Hep]

7. You guys post answers?

Makes me wonder why you never answer any of MY questions.

[cindyw]

10. Think about that.

n/t

[Hep]

11. No need

I know the answer to why my questions get ignored. It's because people are too busy posting attacks.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Nice colorful language there

Keep it up though, it helps us Kerry supporters feel superior.

[mouse7]

12. Kerry supporters don't need help trying to "feel superior"

Kerry supporters "feel superior" quite well without help from others.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. I don't feel the same about most Clarkies

just so 'ya know.

[zulchzulu]

22. We may feel "superior" next to you, but that's pretty obvious why

We can't help it. :->

[zulchzulu]

13. These comments coming from you...

Now that's funny.

[JI7]

15. post some links to this

it's funny coming from someone who makes a joke out of anything posted about kerry and never addresses the actual points being made.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Because we've have the most substance in answer

the longest and most consistent record.

[jcgadfly]

18. That may be the problem

It seems tha Kerry's supporters glorify his past accomplishments (and they are numerous and praiseworthy) but when critics bring up his current actions, they accuse the critics of playing dirty politics.

Why is that?

[JI7]

20. not true

we post his current positions and policies everyday here.

[jcgadfly]

23. Then why is it when he voted for IWR

and later claimed he was duped by the Bush baby (no insult to protosimians meant) and people mention it, the "You're practicing attack politics" call rises against the critics?

If he's to stand on his record, he needs to stand on all of it.

That goes for any of the candidates.

[JI7]

24. who said it was "attack politics" ?

?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. Well I see one of his current actions is to support tax cuts

for the middle class. Which is consistent with what good liberal Democrats are all about, and has been his consistent position throughout the campaign.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Because we have the answers.

Because John Kerry has the best record, the most comprehensive experience, the highest integrity, the most visionary ideas, and the right temperment to be President.

[jcgadfly]

21. Would you care to answer

the question in post 18 as well?

Thanks

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Your question in post 18 is bogus.

" That may be the problem

It seems tha Kerry's supporters glorify his past accomplishments (and they are numerous and praiseworthy) but when critics bring up his current actions, they accuse the critics of playing dirty politics.

Why is that?"


Your premise is totally false. It isn't dirty politics to discuss the issues, or 'current actions'. Are you talking about the IWR vote? There have probably been thousands of discussions of the IWR vote on DU. I won't try to claim no Kerry supporter ever called it 'dirty politics' but I haven't, and it isn't, (although I certainly find the constant off-topic interjection of the IWR vote issue into threads about taxes, the environment, etc. to be extremely tiresome).