OT: Jerome Corsi setting his sights on Hillary

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/0508/76263

Somehow.not.able.to.garner.sympathy.for.Hillary.

Help!! I'm normally not like this.

[whometense]

1. I have to admit, when I saw your subject line

I got a big grin on my face.

Karma's a bitch. :evilgrin:

[Firespirit]

2. I wish he wouldn't

It'll just garner sympathy for her within the Party ranks, and inevitably invite comparisons between how Kerry managed them and how she managed them.

[beachmom]

3. Well, based on the Path to 9/11 debacle, I doubt she'll do much better.

UNLESS, the media decides not to bite. They carried a lot of water for the SBVT. The question will be what they do with the attacks on Hillary. That part of it is completely out of our hands.

You're right about one thing -- the whole party will unite and help her out, something Kerry didn't seem to have the full benefit of due to her wing of the party.


By the way, someone in that thread I referenced said Hillary's one of the most liberal members of the Senate. They're being multiply smacked down as we speak.

[wisteria]

8. Now you see, I want to see those comparisons because then we can ask

where was all this help in 04?

[Firespirit]

11. Heh

I like the way you think.

I just hope you're right, and that I'm being too pessimistic about how it would be spun.

[TayTay]

4. Jerome Corsi lied to me! OMFG, he, he lied to me!

He was supposed to come to Massachusetts and run against John Kerry for the Senate in '08. He promised. We had the swaztikas all picked out for the podium!

You mean, he's not coming? OMFG, what will I tell the kids?

Anti-Kerry author eyes Bay State Senate run
Boston Herald, (01-25-2005)
By NOELLE STRAUB

WASHINGTON - The co-author of the Swift Boat veterans' book that attacked Sen. John F. Kerry plans to move to the Bay State this year so he can challenge Kerry for his Senate seat in 2008.

"I'm going to do it," said Jerome Corsi, 58. "I've got serious political aspirations now."

Corsi, who has had to apologize for inflammatory comments he made about Islam, the pope and Judaism, lives in New Jersey but plans to establish residency in Boston this spring.

Though not a veteran himself, Corsi co-authored "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Currently, a U.S. Financial Marketing Group managing partner, Corsi plans to sell his interest in the company and enter politics.

Corsi, who earned a PhD in political science from Harvard University in 1972, also has a book coming out in April called "Atomic Iran." He said his "strong first choice" is to run as a Republican, but without GOP party backing he would run as an independent.

He plans to run even if Kerry does not. "It may be time for a conservative movement to take hold in Massachusetts," Corsi said.

Kerry spokesman David Wade declined comment on Corsi, saying Kerry is focused on his Senate work. But state Democratic chairman Phil Johnston said, "I know Massachusetts will not welcome a candidate whose calling card is a disturbing track record of slandering Catholics, the pope, Jews and Vietnam veterans. Carpetbaggers spreading lies and smears are not welcome in our state."

Johnston was referring to comments Corsi posted in the past few years on FreeRepublic.com. In the posts, Corsi called Islam "a cancer that destroys the body it infects," called the pope "senile," and referred to Kerry as "John (expletive) Commie Kerry."

Corsi said the comments "were not meant as serious expressions of my views and opinions," but "meant to be satirical and provocative . . . It's like saying Shakespeare is responsible for something one of his characters said."

[Blaukraut]

5. lol, I forgot about that promise!

Damn, there goes the comic relief for the 08 election!

[TayTay]

6. Yeah, he was going to come to Massachusetts

and kick the Democrat's arse. Remember that. Then someone must have said, "Ah, Jerome, you stand about as much chance of being elected garbage collector in MA as a 3 week old dead cod fish. People wouldn't let you stomp cockroaches around their houses. They would rather the entire State sink into the Atlantic than ever see you on the ballot. People think you are, ahm, a little too neanderthal for this State."

Like I said, what a shame. The swaztikas were all picked out, the Brown Shirts were ironed and in the closets, the fascist salute all practiced and ready-to-go. Now, no guest of honor. Honestly, I just feel lied to and used. I feel so cheap now. (BTW :sarcasm:)

[Blaukraut]

9. Maybe he'll move to New York instead to run against Hillary

next time she's up for senate. May I copy your post and email it to hubby? It's too good not to share!

[TayTay]

10. Yes, my pleasure.

I am just sorely disappointed that we won't have Jerome Corsi to kick around here. I was so looking forward to it.

Jerome can never run for anything. Those freeper posts will follow him the rest of his life. He can dish it out, but there is no way the little weasel can take it.

[ProSense]

12. What a tool!

Make that lying scum bag!

[wisteria]

7. Let Hillary defend Hillary. She has the money.

I would like to see the comparisons of the help Kerry received in 04 to her campaign. As for the Kos comment about the SBV doing irreparable harm to Kerry's presidential run, I don't agree, he recovered after the debates from the smears and they have been discredited now. Kos give them way to much importance.
Let the Clinton's spend some of Hill's war chest from the Senate campaign to fight them off. Somehow, I don't this this band of smear mongers is going to gain much traction this time around. Rove will be out of the Picture as well as Bush and this group is most loyal to these two as are their backers.

Why would KOS even care?

[Democrafty]

13. No big surprise.

I don't feel bad because JK would have been much more effective in fighting the Swifties (and in everything else!) if the Dem establishment had been behind him AT ALL. So now they're back, and that's the fault of the establishment Dems who didn't act the first time.

[karynnj]

14. I agree - and they could have chosen very easy things to defend

Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops.

They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.

Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.

What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?

Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?

They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.

Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.

The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)

Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion.

This ties into the Beachmom post yesterday which explained why Kerry was vulnerable on this because he protested. She is right that their goal was really just to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)

One article I read but can't find suggested that although in 2004, it would have been tough given the stage of the war, what Kerry needed to do was to show that the same values that led him to be the hero he was in war, led to his leadership in ending the war. I think Kerry did try to do that with the "call to service" theme and in his acceptance speech - but I agree that it was not understood by some people.

[Democrafty]

15. I totally agree.

John Kerry did the right thing in so many situations - that's not my opinion, that's public record. He should not have had to spend his campaign debating the public record with Republicans. His job was to get votes. The entire Dem establishment had the facts on their side and didn't use them. To me, that's pretty much unforgiveable.

[whometense]

16. Bravo.

That was beautiful.

[karynnj]

17. What's cool is that it seems to have convinced at least one person

who wrote a really nice comment - (the second reply)

The first reply spoke of the media which also didn't do its job.
ents/2007/1/18/0508/76263/118#c118