Strategy Session.

[Goldeneye]

I'm pretty sure everyone in here wants John Kerry to run for president again. And more than that we want him to win and be president. We know that the internets is like the new hub of politics, especially for the left.

Despite the extremely vocal criticism of Kerry at DU, he scored fairly well on that approval rating poll a while back. So we can assume there aren't that many people who hate him. Just a few vocal ones. I assume these people are bitter about the primaries and have a hard time letting go. They're the ones who jump at the word Kerry. I don't really know if there is much we can do for them.

There are many DUers who are just disappointed that Kerry conceded. I get pretty tired of hearing about it, because there is really nothing that could have been done. But, maybe some of these people are reachable?

Then there are people who are new to DU and never really paid much attention to Kerry. Former Republicans, people new to politics, etc. They see the DUers who don't like Kerry running around the board like coked-up yahoos (too harsh?) dropping "Kerry sucks" bombs everywhere. If we get organized against the "Kerry sucks" crowd maybe we can reach these new people.

And maybe we can change the way DUers look at Kerry? We can try anyway.

First we need to set the message straight. We should make a coordinated effort to respond to unqualified Kerry attacks. Maybe we could have a continuing thread where we work together to put together a response to these attacks. What we have now is 4 or 5 of us responding to the poster. This has three drawbacks. First, we become well-known as the "Kerry apologists". Second our message is diluted. A single well thought out response would be stronger, I think. Third, we'll never get anyone to come to our group if 5 of us pounce all over posters when they attack Kerry. I know we're drawn to these fights, like Bush to bald guys, but we should hold back and put together one solid response.

Second we need to get on message. I hate the idea of talking points, but maybe we could have some standard responses to some of the standard Kerry bashing phrases (i.e. Kerry conceded, so he should just shut up!).

Third, or maybe this should've been first, we need to keep reminding people about Kerry's record. There is plenty for us to work with. His voting record speaks for itself. His IWR vote was not the mistake many would like to believe it was. The debates. BCCI. Vietnam. There is plenty to work with.

It amazes me how quickly DUers would throw away one of there most important fighters, because they're unhappy with him for whatever reason. It's our job to at least try and change the tone around here. Kerry group posters, this is a call to action.

[MH1]

1. Excellent ideas.

Especially #1 because that is something we can do right now.

For example I got in trouble with my post here and I haven't been able to get back to the basher's reply with a good response:

My post (innocuous, I thought):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986524&mesg_id=1990231

The basher's reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986524&mesg_id=1991418

Now I know Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are anti-Kerry and pro-Nader, but it just won't do to post that out in the main forums. And really that would be attacking the messenger rather than the message.

(I've been doing mostly drive-by posts lately for several reasons. Maybe I should just stop, if it just stirs things up and I can't stick around to finish the job; and unfortunately I really can't these days - hopefully that changes soon.)

So.... can any experts here help out with what's the best response to that Democracy Now article that the poster references? Something tells me the "Kerry kept too much money and shouldn't have conceded" type of bashers must use that one a lot.

[Goldeneye]

3. The only source I can find for $50 million is democracynow.

I'm pretty sure it was closer to $15 million. The DemocracyNow report seems to be a little misleading. Read this article and you'll see what I mean.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=261798&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Faux News article. It's kind of irritating, but they've got some decent info about where the money is going. They suggest the money was being saved in case there were recounts. That won't go over well with DUers though...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138903,00.html

I'm a little confused about this issue myself. It's reasonable that he saved the money for recounts...but if he did, why didn't he fund the recounts? I can only think of a few possibilities

a. he was trying to horde the money for 2008 :eyes:
b. he's really a republican and he was trying to help bush win :eyes:
c. he expected the election to be closer and didn't see the need for a recount when the win was so big

Maybe a more knowledgeable Kerry person has a better idea.

[LittleClarkie]

16. It breaks down like this

I posted an article before the weekend.

45 million was what he had when the primaries ended
15 million is what he had by the end of 2004.

So 30 million had gone to other candidates, to Gregiore in Washington, to the runnoff elections in Lousiana and such.

That 15 million included the GELAC fund, according to OpenSecrets.org and the FEC.

Also according to those sources, Gore had 15 million as well at the end of 2000.

So there isn't some bazillion dollars hanging around. It's almost amusing, but not really, to see how that number is inflated. It's good to know the truth, and how to back it up.

[Goldeneye]

21. Stupid DemocracyNow!

I don't understand what's with there article saying he had $50 million left over. I like Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow!, but I just don't get it...:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

22. Here's an article from Argus Online

http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-639.html

Apparently some have flunked reading comprehension.

[sandnsea]

46. A million to the 50 State Campaign

That million in February was specifically for grassroots efforts and probably helped hire staff in those first four states in April. It's more than a reading comprehension problem. :dunce:

[karynnj]

4. There may be nothing you could answer to him.

Earlier in the thread, it was explained both that the number was wrong and that the bulk of the money was from the primaries and couldn't be used by Kerry. The money is not the real question - it was the decision to do or not do a recount.

Kerry correctly opted not to call for a recount because he lost by about 120,000 votes. I know of no politian winning a recount with a difference even in the 1,000s. When the greens/libertarians chose to do so - and they needed Kerry to sign on (as the only possible beneficiary), he did. Even at that time, the K/E campaign downplayed the likelihood of it changing the result.

Cam Kerry's statement was their longest most detailed statement and most likely reflected a "cleaned up" version of JK's views as well. Cleaned up by saying "irregularities" vs "evidence of cheating" It was a mature, responsible statement of reality - more votes that could be counted were cast for Bush than for Kerry. However, by discussing the fact that votes (mostly innercity) were lost due to incompetence and that there were new ways voting was made difficult, Kerry is not ignoring voting problems - he is a sponsor to the Senate legislation (with Boxer and Clinton) brought to the floor of the Republican Senate and he has pushed the issue in some speeches and his emails.

If Kerry would have not conceded and persisted in making DU like claims that could not be proven, it would only have helped Bush and the Republican party. The failure in Iraq, problems in the economy, the US continuing to fall in popularity around the world and other problems which people are beginning to see would be blamed on Kerry as the press defended Bush and argued that Kerry was undermining democracy by claiming a victory when "Bush won overwhelmingly". The Congress would have still confirmed the election, Bush would still be President. The Democratic party, unless it condemned Kerry very early on, would be in even worse shape. Instead it is the Republicans and Bush losing popularity.

What it comes down to is equivilant to a 2 yr old asking for something the parent can't give him. The parent can explain repeatedly why not - but you can't reason with most 2 yr olds. I'm sure Kerry would be delighted to have given them their wish and become President, but it was just not possible.

[jillan]

2. YES! this is a great idea.

I think alot of us have been having the same thoughts.

But I think we do need talking points - I hate to use that phrase- so maybe we can come up with a different phrase. Maybe like Kerry facts?

The one thing that I have been noticing is that Kerry is getting bashed for his comments at the Grand Canyon, when he was asked "Knowing what you now know about the war...". That seems to be the latest Kerry bash.

Sometimes I wonder if people are mad that he didn't win, and are just taking it out on him. I was really mad at him at first.

Would do you think of the idea of first making a list of what we want to focus on?

I just wish we had a better answer about conceding. I have a hard time answering that one, because I still have issues with that. Another day or two wouldn't have hurt. A statement from his camp, and everyone would have understood. I think I know why he did it. I just wish they would have come out with a statement for his supporters.

[Goldeneye]

5. I think we should make a list of his weaknesses,

and come up with answers to them. There are some things we just don't have answers for though and we might as well admit it. Kerry conceding quickly is one of them. I've never understood why he conceded when he did. He and a few of the people closest to the campaign are the only ones who know. But I trust him. I have no reason not to. His record until then was good. And his record since then is good. He must have had a reason, and hopefully some day we will know what it was. Maybe it was as simple as him thinking he really lost.

[karynnj]

6. Very counter productive to work at making a list of weakness

a list of vulnerablities or a list of negatives that stuck is better.

The problem with weaknesses, is that it tends to be very negative and has the potential of the list being perceived as a list of Kerry's flaws, when in fact most aren't.

A month or so before the election, there was an op-ed I read for which I unfortunately can remember the source. It was adressing a comment of how Rove could make any candidate, even Kerry look good. It discussed how thoroughly the Republicans had transformed Kerry's image from who he really was. It then said that if Kerry was Rove's candidate - he would have had no work at all to do. He would have had the articulate, intelligent, war hero, who had a resume of accomplishments over the course of his life. He would have had an easy time contrasting this to the real Bush, instead of the Rovian Bush image.

On one of the recent threads, they brought up flip-flop - I was surprised that Kerry's basic political philosophy and his positions are actually very consistent or change gradually with circumstances. Also, he can't be the #1 liberal and flip-flop at the same time.

Other things like the windsurf/ looks French stuff that was all designed to attempt to make him look less macho than Bush - was hard to fight, because it was essentially the equivilent of a whisper campaign. Seeing that Rove and all were making a big production of Bush's mountain biking, Kerry's campaign should have found a way to let people know of his long races for charity. If Armstrong backs him next time, he should use that association and make it clear that Kerry participates in 180 mile bike races at age 61! As a bonus, he doesn't get brusies on his face.

[Goldeneye]

8. "a list of vulnerablities or a list of negatives that stuck is better."

That is what I was trying to get across. I guess I could've worder it better. I have a hard time coming up with areas where Kerry is actually weak as a politician or as a candidate. The major problems during the campaign were usually the result of republican spin rather than Kerry saying or doing something stupid.

[karynnj]

9. I figured that was what you really meant

I've wondered if one of the outcomes of Kerry emailing people for the next few years, will be that to the people on the list, he and his ideas will become very familliar to those people. These people will be able to vouch for his consistency over a period of about 4 years. (Many will be interested enough to read to see where he was in the past - thus seeing a very principled, consistent man.)

That this nucleus of people will know him very well and be able to give clear counter examples in disscussions with friends will help - it's hard to yell flip flop when the goals in 2004 match in intent the goals of 2008. Trying to portray him as a do nothing will be hard when people see that the reason he had good answers in the debates is that he is involved and is expert on so many issues.

He is still the only one of the potential candidates who has articulated an exit plan to Iraq. (Other than Meehan and Kennedy has any else articulated a detailed plan.)

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. IMO

the reason he conceded was because not only about Ohio, but because there were 3 million more votes for *, and that it would almost be impossible to prove fraud. Also with a Rep. Congress, Rep. Senate and a Rep. majority SCOTUS, I think he knew deep down if he didn't have the proof it would get him nowhere. I also think if that proof serviced in time, he would of been fighting to the end.

I think we were all saddened by his decision,I have not cried that much for a politician or this country since JFK died, but he deserves credit, for not putting this country through more turmoil then we already have.

As far as the $50 million story, I don't see any proof to it. I use to listen to Democracy Now all the time, until one time she had a radical member of the VVAW, bashing Kerry for ridiulous reasons, saying that Kerry didn't stand up for Vets since those days. That is total BS, all you have to do is look at his record.

As far as turning minds around, there are 74,000 members on this site and of those I would say only about 10% post regularily, and of that 10%, maybe less than 1% are the bashers. The reason we have to keep posting facts are for the 90% that are lurking, we want them to know the truth.

Just my 2 cents.

[ginnyinWI]

10. What I think:

It's good to discuss this--because if we have a unified voice it will make a stronger case. Thanks, Goldeneye!

Okay: The reason we are still here backing Kerry is because of how absolutely convinced we are of how very qualified he is to become a great president, right? We will be helping if we can lead others in that direction. Whenever WE are confronted with something that Kerry maybe did wrong, or failed to do, etc in the campaign, we then think--"well yeah, but he is still far and away the very best Dem around!!"

Still with me? So I think concentrating on the postives will work best. It does no good to argue the small points back and forth with the disrupters, that's for sure. The main thing to spend energy on is showing in various ways Kerry's excellent qualifications. Even the "Kerry gave up" crowd will be won over if they can see him as still their best hope. In other words, they will forgive him for perceived mistakes if they can regain their trust again. We never lost ours. :blush:

Some specific ideas:

JK's Qualities--make simple but confident statements like "Kerry is still the most qualified Democrat to be our next president" and then give reasons. It can't be just inspired by our own loyalty--we have to give reasons. A little like building a candidate up from ground level for a first time. It might be best to speak as if he were running for the first time by not referring to the past campaign. I think JK himself is taking this tack. It will be a new time and a new opponent next time. Kerry will be different, as we all will be. We have to know why he's still the best and communicate that well enough to convince others.

JK's Record--we should all build together a list of things Kerry is/was right about to have as reference. He has consistently offered solutions to today's problems both this year and last, unlike a lot of Dem politicians. And also have on hand what he's been doing since the election. That should be easy! This doesn't contradict my first point, because you always look at any candidates prior statements and actions. We just don't need to refer back to the campaign specifically and rehash all that. What counts is how qualified someone is to be elected, and nothing else. Leave it to Kerry to decide how to run his campaign better next time.

Deflate the Lies--when we see the RW talking points, point them out for all to recognize. Not only saying, "those are RW talking points", but vary it with things like, "So you agree with Karl Rove??? That guy is a known liar!", or "that's just a campaign lie from the RNC". And then make a clear, declarative sentence stating the truth about Kerry. Not just "he's not ___", but "Kerry is ____" We have to go beyond just debunking lies and smears to the point of making positive Kerry statements whenever we can. Repetition will help erase the many mindless false repetitions, hopefully. We know the RW will be on the attack always. But if nobody believes them, then their attempts at smearing will be useless.

[karynnj]

12. This sounds great to me

also it might be somewhat less likely to get into the name calling or arguing over vague generalities. Also, it plays to Kerry's biggest strength - he HAS plans and is willing to share them. And the majority of positions he takes are liberal. I just read a very nice speech by a favorite candidate in DU - it hit all the topics, values etc. but there were no specific ideas.

On things like the war, Kerry was willing to lay his cards on the table - what he would do now is known. Although a few others have said what hey want to do it is very vague.

Also, sometimes they are posting because they have mistaken ideas - on the pro-Kerry globalization thread one person talked about NAFTA and implied he voted for CAFTA and then responded nicely when I posted he voted against it and mentioned his attempted amendment.

What I realize from your proposal is that I should have found the 1993 NAFTA speech that TAY TAY posted a link to. This plus a mention that he talked about the evolution of his thinking on trade bills in the Portman hearing. The reason this might have been good was that at that point, the level of disscussion was serious and the view of Kerry's thought process from the NAFTA speech, the Portman hearings and the CAFTA speech is insightful - he is a very serious man trying to balance many factors on a subject where the world is changing very quickly.

I think that what I need to do for myself is to create a list of things that I might like to reference so that I can both be more accurate and complete and more convincing.

[Goldeneye]

19. I think you're right on all accounts.

make simple but confident statements like "Kerry is still the most qualified Democrat to be our next president" and then give reasons.

That's another list we could make: What makes Kerry the best qaulified? A good, complete list with links could be pretty useful. Maybe we could put together a whole thread with all of our "kerry resources." Links to important articles, refutions of bogus claims, lists of Kerry's qaulifications, Kerry faq, lists of the RNC talking points, etc. We could be the best organized group at DU. :-)

[Island Blue]

11. First of all, I would like to commend (and thank) you guys

for always fighting the good fight and standing up for John Kerry when the going gets tough in GD/GDP. Since I don't have much time to sign on right now, it seems like by the time I even know there's a "fight" going on, it's all over but the shoutin'.

One question I have is, would it be possible for us collectively, to put together some kind of listing of links for articles, voting records etc. that deal with the areas that JK seems most vulnerable on in DU? Even though I think everyone here makes very compelling arguments in JK's favor, sometimes it might help for that argument to be confirmed by outside sources. Like I said, I don't even know if it would be possible for us to compile such a resource, but we could all at least maybe have links that we come across on our own ready to post. (I know many of you already do that.)

I agree with what others have said on this thread. The most thought out, well researched post in Kerry's defense may not affect the hell-bent Kerry basher, but it might have a positive effect on someone who doesn't hate Kerry but is still trying to come to grips with the results of the last election.

[karynnj]

13. Totally agree

I was writing my response to Ginny saying the same thing less clearly.

I agree that even if we're 100% accurate if we can link to sonething that is authoritative we'll have much more strength.

[globalvillage]

14. Great idea.

I think the IWR and the concession were the two things that really piss people off.
This is the best explanation I can find for the IWR vote. Kerry's words in a Will Pitt article.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

<snip>
"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words 'weapons inspectors' were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

[Goldeneye]

15. That quote and this pretty much cleared things up for me.

The resolution was not a vote to go to war (see first question above). Kerry did not say that he would have invaded Iraq even if he knew no WMDs would be found. He only said that he would have voted to affirm the president's authority to handle the situation. While George Bush attempted once again to spin this as a statement that Kerry would have handled things the same way he had, that is not even remotely what Kerry said. Kerry was simply, and clearly, reaffirming his unchanged position on granting the President authority in that situation. John Kerry has never changed his position on whether it was correct to affirm the President's authority to take action to defend the nation. Nor has he changed his position on whether he would have handled the situation differently.

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority . I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.

"And my question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve and relieve a pressure from the American people?" — John Kerry, August 9, 2004

"I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because, had I been president, I would have wanted that authority, because that was the way to enforce the U.N. resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his development of weapons of mass destruction. But the president said he would go to war as a last resort. The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the U.N. The president said he would build a legitimate international coalition.

"And here we are, several years later, having made an end-run around the United Nations, alienated our allies, put our soldiers at greater risk than they needed to be, asked the American people to pay almost $200 billion, because we didn't have the patience, we didn't have the maturity to exhaust the remedies available to us and truly build that coalition and understand the nature of the threat." — John Kerry, Unity Conference, August 5, 2004

www.kerryoniraqwar.com

[globalvillage]

20. OK, good.

So, is the plan that, whenever we see "Kerry voted to go to war", we use these two points? I think it's a great strategy. It confirms his rationale and clarifies his response. Best of all, it's the truth. If we repeat it, it will stick.
As for the bashers, I don't mind being called an 'apologist' or a 'cheerleader' (yesterday). This is the internet, after all. Hell, if John Kerry wants to apologize for something he's done or something he hasn't done, that's his business. I am looking for the best person to lead our country out of the hell that is the bush* administration, and I don't see anyone who can do it better than the Senator. Because of that, I've got his back.

Goldeneye, I think you rock. Let's get organized!

:yourock:

[Island Blue]

25. Sounds like a plan!

I think if we start confronting the bashers with reliable facts, they MIGHT begin to quiet down a little bit. (And if all else fails, Vektor can bust 'em with a haiku!)

What are some of the areas where JK is vulnerable to attacks besides his IWR vote, his concession and money left over from the campaign? I know Skull & Bones really gets people going, but I'm not sure how to counteract that one. Any thoughts? I'm sure the fact of his membership will be dredged up soon since it was recently announced that Patrick Fitzgerald's new boss was in S & B the same year Shrub was.

[Goldeneye]

28. I guess that's a good place to get started.

Let's get a list going of the most common issues Kerry is attacked on. We can work on responses too.

Skull and Bones
Quick Concession
Money left over
IWR vote
"I'd still vote for it even knowing what I know now"
the I was for it before I was against it thing
DLC membership (sort of?)

[globalvillage]

29. Honestly, IB, I think the S&B is BS.

Have you ever belonged to a sorority/fraternity? On pledge night, I had to steal a mirror from the ladies room of the local bar. I was dumped off on a deserted road to find my way back to my 'sisters'. I had to sing some seriously stupid songs.
S&B is a diversion, just like any other 'secret society'. It's Dead Poets Society. It gives kids a sense of belonging when they're far from home.
Anyone who believes that S&B is more than that should look under their bed before they go to sleep tonight.

[Goldeneye]

31. I think its BS too,

but there are a number of DUers who believe that crap, so we might as well read up on it and put together some kind of response if were doing all this other work.

[Island Blue]

49. I agree that S & B is just BS

I don't have an issue with it at all but I was just wondering the best way to respond to someone who does makes a big deal out of it. Sometimes I know that's all these haters have to base their dislike of Kerry on so they latch onto it as if his membership makes him a co-conspirator with W*.

[karynnj]

53. Can we use the equivalent of "born again"

Kerry was a senior at a college that was at the pinnacle of the establishment. He was asked to join the most exclusive club there was - along with some people who were already among his best friends. He had met with people who were important in society and in government. He was already connected loosely to this group by friendship and his Forbes background.

Kerry and several of his friends enlisted in various officers programs after being persuaded to be people like the Bundy brothers, who were uncles of Kerry's roommate - who went to graduate school. Kerry who enlisted in his junior year was already convinced the war was a mistake by the end of his senior year. His father held the same position. Kerry was told he would likely be drafted if he deferred entering the service for a year as he wanted to.

Tour of Duty, essentially records how Kerry moved from the position of thinking VN was a strategic mistake to questioning both the morality of the war and the insanity of the way it was being fought. The former, he had to keep to himself. He quickly allied with peers who tried to get their superiors to change a policy that essentially made them sitting ducks, while having no chance of really winning the area. He used his intelligence to keep his men as safe as possible while reaching out to them on a personal level.

In Going UP River, the comment is made that you can't understand Kerry without understanding VN. VN changed Kerry. Kerry could easily have returned a hero and returned to his life at the pinnacle of the American society. In Going Up River, Bob Kerrey makes the point that you can't choose to lead a protest movement AND start a conventional political career. Kerry clearly chose to follow his conscience rather than stick with the establishment. He did not fight Nixon to help himself, but to help the veterans, who weren't being treated well and the current soldiers who were facing death in a war where the leaders knew success wasn't possible.

It is this decision that I would argue is a "born again" moment. From that point on Kerry's life is very consistent. He is for holding the US to its own laws and to international law. If you use GHWB as the S&B leader - Kerry is persistently on the other side. Consistent with his views on VN, he was against the same type of thing in Central America. Listening to his Senate speeches, Kerry is influenced by his religion, his sense of fair play and his concern for people who are hurt by society.

I think that S&B is really a fraternity that intentionally recruited people who were likely to make a difference. These people had the contacts with those in power already and the Frat likely just enhanced them. The friends Kerry had in S&B, such as Thorne and Fred Smith, helped in his campaigns. There is nothing mysterious about this - they were his college friends and people of real accomplishment. That the same would hold with * , that he would appoint S&B people is no more mysterious. In the most recent case the question should be is he too close a friend to put over the man investigating the administration.

[globalvillage]

61. I belonged to the same sorority

as Margaret Chase Smith.
That don't make me a senator.

(different era, BTW. I'm not that old)

[ginnyinWI]

33. agree

The bashers should not be allowed to go unchallenged in their assertions about Kerry. But if we only say "is not!" they will only say, "is too!". Instead,we can give them facts. It might not change them, but it will neutralize the thread's damaging effects! But it needs to be done in a kind and understanding way, if possible! Try to imagine how JK would respond to someone; he'd engage them in a conversation, listen to their point of view, then give his own.

Other things they say: that he had his chance and we need "fresh blood", that he's out of touch, that he ran a bad campaign, that he's a good senator but that's all, that he wasn't aggressive enough, that he was too cautious. Hmm--it doesn't exactly describe the fiery guy I saw giving the Repubs "what-for" on the Senate floor recently!

By keeping the truth out there, DU won't be able to rewrite the whole campaign or make Kerry into someone completely different in order to marginalize him.

When TayTay gets back from vacation, I know she will have all sorts of resources for us--doesn't she have access to Lexus-nexus or something? And there is the Kerry Referece Library site. And we can all contribute to a list of links, and give them specific categories. Then if each of us can save that list of basic links then we will have them to back up our facts. That's how good Democrats operate in the reality based community. I think I will start some Word folders to keep them in on my computer.

[whometense]

84. The "he ran a bad campaign" meme -

I hear that all the time.

I think the only way to counter that is with the total number of votes he received, and contrast those numbers with the totals received by other dem nominees, the more recent the better.

If Kerry's campaign was so bad, how come he inspired so many to go to the polls to vote for him??? And because of all the dirty tricks used against him the number of votes counted for Kerry is a lowball number.

[ginnyinWI]

85. I happened to mention to my daughter the other day

how close it was, and that Kerry got more votes than Gore, more votes than Clinton, more votes than any other candidate except *, and she got wide-eyed: "But Gore really won last time! And Kerry got more votes??!"

She is a fairly well-informed 22 year old, and didn't realize the sheer volume of votes in this last election. Kerry won everywhere but the South, and won a lot of age groups and minority groups: Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Gays, Youth 18-29, Independents, Moderates.
Outside of the South, he won 252 out of 377 electoral votes, which is 2/3. All we need to do is work on getting more of those votes. (Personally, I would just give up on the South, but then I'm not the head of the DNC!)

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. I have a really hard time responding to IWR shit

Without wanting to go into full attack mode. Most of those who make the nastiest IWR comments supported a candidate who was, let's just say, a wee bit of a *flip-flopper* himself regarding the war. So most of the time when I see THESE PEOPLE making snide IWR jibes, I just want to go on the offensive and start throwing their own candidate's hypocrisy (and their own, by extension) in their face, even though I know refighting the primary wars is counterproductive.

[TayTay]

82. Who framed the 'Kerry voted for IWR' question?

This is a false argument from the get-go and one that is used by Rethugs to foment dissension in the ranks of the Democrats and shift the onus from * to Kerry for the war. This was not John Kerry's war. There is nothing in his record, speeches or actions that indicate that he would have gone to war in the way that the Bush Admin did or that he would have conducted the war in anything even close to the extremely short-sighted and incompetent way that the Bushies have done so.

There is no moral equivalency on the Iraq War between Kerry and Bush. Sen. Kerry voted for protective action that was based on the idea that the Bush Admin would allow UN inspectors back into Iraq to determine if there were WMDs there. The Bush Admin had no such intentions and, as the Downing Street Minutes show, were 'fixing the facts around the policy.' The facts, as presented to the Senate and to Sen Kerry, were 'fixed' and the resulting vote was based on lies the Bush Admin told the Congress.

This whole argument against Kerry is being played on Rethug turf. The first lie is that Kerry had the same facts as the Defense Dept and the Prez. He did not. (See Downing Street Minutes.) The second argument is that Kerry is a 'warmonger' who voted FOR the war. He did not. He voted to allow the inspectors back into Iraq and for the type of proper and thorough investigation that would have revealed that the Bush Admin was not telling the truth about Iraq. The third argument is that Kerry is somehow 'responsible' for the war because of his vote. This is ludicrous. Kerry did not have any part in the design, implementation or planning of the Iraq War. The Bush Administration, not John Kerry, is entirely responsible for the debacle of Iraq. The attempt to off-load responsibility to someone else is a typical Rethug trick to get someone else to take the blame for their stupid actions.

Does this help in the IWR debate?

[LittleClarkie]

17. Do you think he was foolish to believe?

That's what some say, that it would have been stupid to believe Bush, so how can we trust Kerry to be president. I think the part where he says that Bush hadn't been hyjacked yet answers that for me, plus having read "A New War" and knowing what Kerry thought about international crime. I think he had a moment of blindness.

But then again, it's pretty inconceivable that there was no one to stop Bush in his administration. Powell, any of the generals. But then Bush Co seems to hate regular army folk, esp. West Point career types.

[globalvillage]

23. I considered that.

But

If you have the backing of the international community, you can be pretty certain you're on the right track.

If you surround yourself with good, strong people, listen to them, listen to the will of the people, and adapt when necessary, you will make the right choices.

bush* does not. Kerry would.

No one person should be expected to hold the future of the world in his hands. Everyone makes mistakes. A president is a person, after all. That's why we need someone who won't go it alone. We need a president and a cabinet and a congress and a supreme court and local government that works for the common good, not against it.

How did we stray so far from what the founders intended?

[LittleClarkie]

24. but do you understand why Kerry chose to believe?

Or do you think he should have known better than to put that kind of power into Bush's hands?

[globalvillage]

26. I think he should have known better.

But that's hindsight. And I don't know what he knew at the time. I've made similar mistakes (on a much smaller scale, of course, and with far less consequence), and I've learned not to repeat them. I would hope Mr. Kerry would have the same ability to grow and learn. I'm fairly convinced that he's smarter than I am.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Not to mention that the way some folks talk, you'd think he had

the deciding vote or something.

And they've forgiven far worse from others. It seems to comes down to popularity. And that sucks.

[globalvillage]

32. His explanation works for me.

Seriously. If anyone thinks he was voting for the war that Iraq became, they should think again. I can't believe that anyone who fought so strongly against an unjust war would cast a vote so easily for another. That would have negated his VVAW position, and I can't imagine he would do that.
JMHO. Maybe the Senator and I are the two most gullible people on the planet, but I get where he was coming from.

[globalvillage]

48. That was kind of an odd thing to say.

I didn't mean that gullible thing literally, BTW.
My point re the IWR vote is that I agree with it. Much as I hate to admit it, I would have made the same choice with the information available. It is, after all, a primary purpose of govt to defend the country, and that was the basis for the vote.
Just because bush* chose to abuse the power he was given, doesn't make it wrong to have given it to him.

[Island Blue]

50. To me it's kind of like this

Remember Rumsfeld's comment "Sometimes you go to war not with the army you want, you go with the army you have." (What a dumb ass.)

Well I think Kerry (and many others) were forced to make a decision not with the information they would have wanted, but with the information you had.

Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you know what I mean. (I hope.)

[ginnyinWI]

34. I think I understand it

First, remember the climate in this country then, just one year after 9/11. Some credible people were saying there was a threat, and Kerry chose to err on the side of caution. It was going to be politically risky either way, and he chose to be seen as stronger on defense rather than weaker.
And as he has said many times since, if HE were the president he would want that authority. That may have been the clincher. Plus, if * would have done what he said he was going to do, and go to the U.N., that is what Kerry himself would have done. It's not a simple issue, and that is why DU has trouble with it.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Add in that even Bush's father should have been a sane voice of reason

for his son, not to mention people like Powell, and I think Kerry figured that something in Bush's administration would stop him from doing something really stupid. He over-estimated those forces, and how much Bush wanted to go to war.

I don't think in Kerry's wildest dreams he imagined they'd make such a mess of it all. You can tell that Rummy in particular gets Kerry's goat something fierce.

Sometimes I think that Cheney and Rummy went exactly against Powell because they were jealous of him. Stupid move, as he was right. I just wish Powell wasn't such a loyalist. He should have been more forceful when they told him to read that report to the UN, more than just saying "This is bullshit!"

[ginnyinWI]

38. true

Cheney has been at odds with Powell for years, and left him out of the loop, they say.

And if we loathe Rummy, I can only imagine how much JK does! He called for his resignation just a few months after the invasion of Iraq. And has repeatedly done so since. If there ever was a person possibly even more incompetent than *, and that is saying a lot, it is Rummy. Remember the scornful words Kennedy had for him in the Armed Services Committee. They all know it too well.

Powell wrote the Powell Doctrine after Vietnam; he had the creds that the * admin. did not. And for whatever reason, he went against his better judgement. Now there is a tell-all book I'd like to read!

[sandnsea]

47. Wesley Clark believed it

Nothing personal, but nobody ever quotes ALL of Clark's testimony in Sept 2002 either. Kerry's thoughts on Iraq were exactly the same as Clark's. No war, but a resolution to let the UN know it was time to get serious about Iraq and that we would go in unilaterally if necessary. I don't think him saying he would have voted for the resolution was a slip at all.

[Goldeneye]

52. Do you have a link handy

for some clark qoutes. Probably would come in handy.

[sandnsea]

54. Here

Here's his statement.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

This was the day before Bush first went to the UN. Nobody knew whether Bush was going to push for war without anymore resolutions or what. When Clark talks about not going to war, he's talking about that possibility. When he talks about a process, it's the process that was taken.

[karynnj]

58. Not foolish

The hardest thing to defend is that there were a group of Senators who voted against it - who Kerry usally votes with. Their arguments were prescient. Byrd, in fact, compared it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution he voted for and regrets. From Kerry's speeches, it looks like he was trying to alter Bush's course which at that point was to attack unilaterurally. The choices were not black and white - Kerry didn't want Iraq ignored or attacked, he wanted it monitored and wanted the inspectors back in. This was consistent with his work on terrorism.

With soldiers already in the Gulf, Bush was prepared to attack and had claimed the WOT vote gave hime the authority. Bush, in fact, later seemed impatient to attack, even as the inspectors got in and actually went even to Presidential palaces and destroyed missles. If congress would have voted down the IWR (which would have taken more than Kerry changing his vote), does anyone really think that Bush would not have gone to war? As CIC, he could have responded to an immediate threat to the US. With 100,000s of soldiers in the Gulf, something could have been portrayed as a threat.

The strategy of going to the UN and getting inspectors in worked. If allowed to continue, it could have been a very major success for diplomacy. The problem is that Bush intentionally ignored that it was working and then (without going back to the UN because he knew he would lose) Britain, Spain and the US decided to attack. The DSM show this was there plan all along.

We know, as it was the path choosen, what the result of war was. We don't know what the result of letting the inspections continue would have been or (if it could have happened) doing nothing would have been. For the doing nothing people, a question should be asked about droppping sanctions - they were harming Iraq, but blindly dropping them would be risky. It seems you need inspectors.

Although I protested the war in Jan, 2003, I really think the middle course was probably the best. As to naiviety, the comment that both Republicans and Democrats close to Bush assured Kerry that they weren't committed to war is important. For him to have assumed they were all part of some evil cabal might play on parts of DU, but it really was well outside any past experience in government to have that many people lying about FUTURE actions. (this excludes lying as a cover-up)

Also, in fairness, Kerry really does seem to give people the benefit of the doubt. (witness the Teresa / John comments on Santorum pre- primaries. As Teresa herself seems a very kind person that John was willing to think Santorum may have changed Teresa was right!) Another example was in the 1970s, Kerry argued that no one would lie or fabricate VN war crimes that they personally did or his belief that no one could question his patriotism. All 3 of these examples show a very good person who expects people to be as good as he is. So, there is probably some fairness to the charge - but I also think some on DU are the opposite in that they are too willing to see evil in everthing Bush does.

[Corey_Baker08]

18. Im With You n/t

[jillan]

30. Wow - you guys have really done alot of work on this!

Looking over everyone's posts, I was thinking -

What if we did a different thread on each topic, and take it from there?
Like one thread on the Iraq vote
one thread on the "If you knew then what you know now, would you still have voted to go to Iraq"
And so on.

I know we want to be positive, so what I think we need to do is take the negatives, and turn them into positives. But we have to know what the bashers are saying. Maybe visit other sites.

I am excited about this. Kerry is doing so much, and nobody notices.

And
"Kerry is still the most qualified Democrat to be our next president"
Excellent frame.:toast:

[ginnyinWI]

35. good idea

We can start a thread on one issue, and everyone post good links and good facts. What do you want to call this project? The Watching Kerry's Back Project? Kerry Advocacy Project? Kerry Facts Project? Can you think of a name?

Whatever, I think it's a good use of our time, because we can get the truth out there so that people will remember what we all keep reminding each other here every day. :)

What shall we start with?

[jillan]

36. How about the KERRY IN 2008 PROJECT?? n/t

[wisteria]

39. This does all seem to be coming together.

it appears I have come in on the tail end of all of this. I'm not able to offer much in the way of further information and suggestions, but I will be very happy to go along with what is decided. Let me know what I can do to help.
Oh, I do have something small to add. There are a lot of "Kerry didn't fight back or he wasn't forceful enough" comments that are mentioned here at DU. I googled a couple of Kerry quotes that I like. These aren't dated , but you can figure out the time frames. With additional research, I'm sure I can locate dates if necessary. let me know what you think. If Im off base here, that fine, I can take the criticism.

"He (Bush) mislead every one of us...That's one reason I'm running to be President."

"They were wrong and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong." (Attaching Bush administration for going to war in Iraq without adequate military intelligence).

"This President rushed to war against the advice of many in this country. He clearly didn't plan for the peace. And, it's extraordinary, it's an act of negligence of remarkable proportions."

"We are going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

"You're not going to have to look for us on vacation. You're going to find us working for America." ( Very appropriate huh!)

"No one is going to question my commitment to the defense of our nation. I don't know what it is these Republicans, who didn't serve in any war, have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

This last one is just for us here at the John Kerry group. Its on what to look for in a woman, from GQ Magazine.

"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Full womanhood. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging." (Well I have to tell you, I'm speechless. Obviously, he not all business all the time).

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. Oh. My. God.

I want to make hot sweet love to him right now.

(Hahaha, I know, so much for my intellectual contribution to this thread.)

[ginnyinWI]

42. describes Teresa to a T, doesn't it? n/t

[sandnsea]

44. Well, my

Steamy. I need a cold drink. :beer:

I missed that interview. If I were to post a critique of the campaign, they were stupid not to let that John Kerry loose!

[Goldeneye]

51. Holy wow.

Best kerry quote ever. That's what that is. Seriously.

Calls for some of this:

[Island Blue]

56. Can you imagine Shrub making those comments

about what he likes in a woman? First of course, I read it with JK's voice in my head and damn near got the vapors! Then I read it with Shrub's voice in my head and cracked up! Having said that, I seriously doubt that Shrub would look for any of those qualities in a woman. Just a lump in the bed beside him suits him just fine, thank you very much.

That is one mighty fine quote from one mighty fine man! :loveya:

[karynnj]

69. It is funny when contrasted with a "lump in the bed"

Also, I would imagine Teresa smiling if she read the description - appreciating the multiple dimensions of a woman her husband describes. In fairness, Bush has repeated the line of marrying up at least a million times - which is better than lump of coal. Neither comment though suggests anything about Laura or George as people, so I can't get the same image of Laura smiling at the description. The kindest iterpretation is they choose not to talk about personal things. If so it's ironic that the reserved, aloof New Englander was the one to very personally describe what he was looking for - and clearly found in Teresa.

If Kerry runs again, I hope they are able to show how hard she has worked and really showcase some of her foundation's successes. She really is a very brilliant woman, who also has so many interests that are her husband's as well. The Republicans managed to make a very kind, nurturing person seem brash and artifical. I was shocked the first time I saw her on CSPAN and saw how soft spoken and kind she was with some of the voters. I've read that she really helped Kerry in Iowa and NH. The Republicans and the media were probably so unkind to her because there saw many people who willing to take Kerry at face value because he had to be a genuine, serious person to have interested Teresa.

I loved the NYT food section feature with Teresa. I love cooking and have read many articles on health, but was impressed when she talked about experimenting with which fish she could use to sunstitute for a high mercury level fish in a fish stew recipe. It really connected to her environmental and health concerns- but it stuck in my mind, because I felt quilty because even though I had seen the list, I hadn't done the same easy thing.

I doubt Teresa would have stayed with an alchoholic who neglected her and his children for the first decade (or more) of their lives as Laura did.

[ginnyinWI]

72. Teresa helped convince me that Kerry was a good candidate

(Sorry for repeating myself to those who've read this before--).

I saw her during the primary season on Cspan without knowing who she was. She was at a conference table with a bunch of nurses and I thought she was a doctor or health advocate of some kind.

My impression was that she was very smart and very kind. After the meeting the women were asking for photos taken with her, and then it dawned on me that maybe she was one of the Dem candidates' wives. At the time I was not a Kerrycrat; she definitely helped draw my attention toward Kerry and away from Dean and Clark. Anyone with a wife as smart as this deserved a second look!

[sandnsea]

77. I agree!!

She could have inspired so many young women to get out and vote. She is just a natural and has so much empathy for people, and belief in people. She is real.

I feel like I'm the only one who sees the campaign completely opposite of everybody else. Other people see Teresa as a liablity, I see her as one of his greatest assets. I don't know who it is in the upper echelon that makes these decisions, but I just don't think they understand every day Americans. She should have been at low income day care centers and nursing homes and vet's hospitals, all of that sort of thing. Time and again, we hear, anybody who meets John or Teresa, loves them. How hard is it to get that image into a commercial?

[TayTay]

88. That is a great quote

Geez those aloof, reserved and robotic old Puritans are really quite interesting when you get up close and personal. LOL! (And I did see this guy in past campaigns and would have liked to have seen him last year. Sigh!)

Kerry lovees to talk to different kinds of people and loves a good conversation/argument. Loves it. (Geek)

"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Full womanhood. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."

[ginnyinWI]

43. Hey Kerrycrats

I tried out our fledgling idea in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=388217&mesg_id=388217

I refuted a statement that said that Dems don't stand up for anything by posting links. See my post, "what Kerry stands for".

I used Kerry's senatorial website to find press releases, and the OntheIssues site, and johnkerry.com. It would be nice to have them all in one spot--it would save time.

[sandnsea]

45. Swift Boat D-Bunk Timeline

The campaign fought back against the Swift Boat Vets. It takes an echo chamber, it takes lock step to get a message out, especially in this media environment. That's one big reason Hackett did so well.

4/25 Karen Hughes attacks medal throwing.

4/26 "We threw away the symbols of the war," Kerry told ABC Monday from a campaign stop in West Virginia. "I'm proud I stood up and fought against it. Proud I took on Richard Nixon. And I think to this day, there's no distinction between the two." "This is a phony controversy,". "... This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard." CNN

4/27 I'm not going to stand for it," Kerry told ABC's "Good Morning America." "I'm not going to stand for it." At the end of the interview, as he unclipped his microphone, Kerry, apparently not realizing the camera was still on, turned to someone and muttered, "God, they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee." CNN

Round 1
April 29 POLL Bush 46-45

5/3 O’Neill letter released, new group announced, SBVT

5/4 Michael Meehan "First O'Neill was part of the Nixon White House attacks, and 33 years later he resurfaced to be part of the Bush attack machine" Globe

5/5 Kerry spokesman David Wade denounced the statements as "a false, lying smear campaign against a decorated combat veteran." He added, "This is the ugly face of the Bush attack machine questioning John Kerry's patriotism." WaPo

5/5 Drew Whitlow of Arkansas, countered the questions about Kerry's straightforwardness, saying: "After a briefing, you always knew what you were going to do. Unlike other officers, you knew where you were going to go, you knew what you always wanted to do. He never deceived you, you were never lied to, and he was always truthful." Globe

5/6 Campaign has press conference with crew mates, Vietnam veterans, positive evaluations from his former commanders and produces 1996 video of Elliott, Longsdale, Zumwalt, defending smear against Kerry and stating he earned his Silver Star.

Round 2
May 6 POLLS Kerry 46-44

8/5 Van O'Dell,from Swift Boat Vets for Truth, joined Hannity and Susan Estrich to continue a discussion about the anti-Kerry ad that has caused a lot of buzz today. Even John McCain denounced it. O'Dell had accused him of lying about the Kerry incident. Rassman, a former green beret, seemed like a no nonsense kind of guy. He was especially angry that this ad claimed the Navy had lied by authorizing Kerry's medals. "That was 35 years ago. The timing is suspicious." Newshounds

Aug 6 Michael Meehan, Kerry spokesman ''Some of these men defended John Kerry's honor on his military record in 1996 and so they were either lying then or lying now, 'Either way, it is gutter politics."

Aug 9 Bill Clinton, TDS “All three of us could have gone. And we didn't and Kerry did, so it's not good for them, so they're tryin' to put a chink in his armor. But it's wrong. And if they really disapproved of it, they would have said they disapproved of it….They do that stuff. Look what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia.”

Aug 11 Jeh Johnson, former AF General Counsel, "The American people recognize this is an effort financed by the right wing, the extreme wing of the Republican Party.”

Aug 12 Account of Mike Medeiros, rear gunner, statement supporting Kerry

Aug 13 Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush WSJ OP-Ed Jim Rassmann

Aug 19 Kerry at Firefighters Convention "He wants them to do his dirty work."

Aug 21 Account of William Rood, Chicago Tribune

Aug 21 Account of Pat Runyon on first Purple Heart Runyon said “shooting broke out.
Somehow, Kerry's weapon stopped firing. Runyon thinks he ran out of ammunition. He said Kerry bent down to pick up another gun and got hit in the arm.” Cleveland Plain Dealer

Aug 23 Larry Thurlow exposed as receiving Bronze Star in same incident Kerry received his.

Aug 24 Rich Baker, Swift Boat Commander "He was number one as far as courageousness and aggressiveness. He set the tone." "George Bush has two silver dental fillings in his teeth to show what he did during the Vietnam War," Baker said. "John Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts." Pittsburgh Post Gazette

8/25 Fox News Live Cutter jumped right on that, pointing out that this is the third time the Bush-Cheney campaign has had to say "we didn't know" about connections to the Smear Boat Liars, & asking how many times they think they can get away with that. Newshounds

8/25 Max Cleland and Jim Rasmussan visit to Crawford, Texas to present a letter signed by 9 senators, asking Bush to pick up the phone and ask his friends to take down the ad.

Round 3
Aug 26 POLL 46-46

[karynnj]

55. This is so impressive

It really does expose the lie for what it was. In a normal election with a normal press - this would have ended very quickly as there would have been consequenses for the Republicans continuing it.

Kerry did deal with this in an intelligent, honest way - the RNC and the press didn't.

[sandnsea]

59. Neither did the grassroots

They didn't repeat this information. They engaged in a spitting match over details. You can't win that way.

The same people who are bitching about this now are the same people who wanted to argue the details last year. They refused to take a stand last year and just support John and denounce the liars. They think these liars will stop if you just present correct facts, they won't. You have to repeat your candidate's strengths and the info that supports those strengths, and label the other side as flat out liars with no shame. That's what they did for Hackett, that's what they'll do for Cindy. Maybe it took the Swift-boating for them to figure it out for the future, but they'll still never get how they failed Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

57. Bush Insider: "By the time the WH finishes with Kerry, no one will know

what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003316.php


<snip>

(August 23, 2004 -- 04:51 PM EDT)

From The Financial Times, left-wing rag, December 9th, 2003 ...

The Bush campaign machine, well oiled and already rolling, should not be underestimated. The current president's father gained a formidable reputation as a nasty campaigner, though the presidential fingerprints were carefully wiped off negative blueprints administered by Lee Atwater, the first Mr Bush's ruthless chief strategist.
Karl Rove, a disciple of Mr Atwater, is similarly meticulous about keeping the president publicly above the fray. Yet it is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."

<snip>

[jillan]

60. sickening - isn't it??? n/t

[karynnj]

63. Sick, but that's what they tried to do

Even down to putting as "evidence", the 1993 photo of Kerry meeting with the VN in his role as chair of the POW/MIA committee. The fact that you could look at the photo and not realize that he was 49 actually helped these liars in implying that it was from the 70s.

Their quote though shows they knew and chose to lie.

[jillan]

62. I was reading that Kerry bashing thread, and I think it is a good thing

I still want Kerry to address the issue of Ohio, and why he conceded.
I think in order for him to continue with his political career, he must overcome that hurdle.

I have emailed him on this many times.
I even emailed Kennedy once after hearing him discuss Hillary as prez, Kennedy said to Russert "I think we have the best candidate right in my own state". People are hurt, not just angry. Tell me when you last saw people crying in the streets because their candidate lost?

Maybe all of the emails Kerry is receiving may cause him to finally comment.

Only Kerry can close the discussion on this topic.

[politicasista]

64. I agree

That thread is full of "if he caves (again), it's over..political funeral, etc." is yucky.

[Island Blue]

66. "Tell me when you last saw people crying in the streets

because their candidate lost?" You know I've been tempted to ask that very same question in a thread of it's own for a while now. I was devastated. Quite a few of my friends were as well, and I know everyone who posts in this group was. I've been voting in presidential elections since 1984 and I've never seen anything like it (from Democrats or Republicans).

Why do you think people reacted the way they did? I'm sure some of it was because we all knew were in for more Bushshit, but I think there had to be more to it than that. I don't care what his detractors say, John Kerry really had an effect people on a gut level.

I also wish he would address the issue of his concession. What do you think the best forum would be for him to do that in? I do think if he is going to offer an explanation, he needs to do it soon, before the '08 campaign season really gets started (in real life, not on DU - it's already started here of course). Also, do you think this is a big issue for folks in the general population, or mainly for those who are more politically tuned in?

[politicasista]

68. I wish he would address it too

Sooner rather than later. It would cut down on all the "he caved, broke his promise, threw the election, coward, quitter" mess.

[jillan]

76. I think it's a huge issue. People are convinced that there was fraud

and Kerry just gave up. It was that "count every vote" statement that is hurting him. An email to the people on his list would be fine. He could just give an update on Ohio, and throw in a sentence or two about why he did it when he did. I dunno, I just feel that people will lighten up on him when he addresses it.

Speaking of crying, I was at work - and the ONLY democrat(I work with one other, but she wasn't there) - I ran into the break room to watch. I was shaking. And had to immediately get back to work. When I got home, I let it all out.:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[sandnsea]

74. Needs to address Ohio, overall

There's two different posts going around. One that K/E campaign is withdrawing from the Cobb lawsuit. And another that the K/E campaign is still involved in other Ohio lawsuits. I really don't know, I have emailed to try and find out. He needs to either address it as part of what they're still doing in Ohio, or say that because they're still involved in lawsuits they can't say more. Or something.

But conceding elections is the way it's done. Is it possible alot of people have never been through a normal election process? We hadn't had one in 8 years. Maybe a 20 year old just didn't understand because they were 12 the last time we had a normal election? :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

80. I'm 20, and I understand

What I don't understand is these idiots in GD who are as old as my mom and who don't understand why Kerry didn't start opening fire on the White House and start a revolution.

[wildflower]

83. It would be nice to have a site like kerryoniraqwar, re: 2004 election...

Is there a site out there with a timeline of all the letters, lawsuits, e-mails, and speeches/comments by Kerry that have occurred regarding the vote problems?

I admit I get confused about what lawsuit or letter happened when. A timeline to refer to would be great.

[Goldeneye]

86. That would be helpful.

There might be somehting like that, but I doubt it would be based on Kerry activities. Maybe we could put one together.

[politicasista]

65. Nice ideas Goldeneye

:hi:

[Goldeneye]

67. we'll see if this works...

1. Who is John Kerry
A. Profiles
a. NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/campaign/kerry_index.html?oref=login
b. WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/whitehouse/kerryjohn/
c. MSN http://slate.msn.com/id/2083923
d. Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry

B. That compilation thread on Kerry stories based on one of his books...can't remember who put them together.
Need a link

C. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry

2. Kerry Related Websites
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/
http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/
http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/
http://www.internetvetsfortruth.org/
http://www.johnkerry.com/
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/

3. Kerry Videos
A.Going Upriver: http://www.kerrysupport.com/upriver/

B.2004 Presidential Debates http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&ShowVidNum=10&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365
C. DailyShow http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/august2004/kerry/kerrydailyshow320x240.mov
D. Congress Testimony on Vietnam
http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/10/movies/upriver/upriver-congress.mov
(transcript: http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html )

E. Kerry Concession Speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/msnbc/ms110304-9v.htm
(Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22619-2004Nov3.html)

F. Videos posted on John Kerry.com http://www.johnkerry.com/video/

4. In the Senate
A. Voting Record
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

B. Interest Group Ratings
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

C. Kerry 2004 Endorsements:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/2004_Media_Endorsements

D. Speeches and Public Statements
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=S0421103

E. Committees:
Commerce, Science and Transportation
Finance
Foreign Relations
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Ranking Member

F. Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Co-Chair, Congressional Vietnam-Era Veterans Caucus Chair,
Democratic Steering Committee Chair,
Hispanic Task Force
Senate New Democrat Coalition.

5. Kerry on the Issues
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm#Energy_+_Oil

6. Campaign Contributions
A. 2004 election: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245
B. Other Elections: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00000245&cycle=2004

7. Other Resources
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/
http://www.opensecrets.org/

8. Useful Articles
Kerry’s Spiritual Biography: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15043_1.html
Kerry’s Open Mind: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/010/20.28.html
The Trial of John Kerry: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

9. Attack Points and Refutions….need to work on it…..
A. IWR vote
B. Quick Concession
C. Slow to respond to Swift Boat Liars
D. $50 Million left over
E. Didn’t count all the votes
F. I would still vote for IWR knowing what I know now
G. Skull and Bones
H. He’s rich
I. Didn’t release academic and military records

10. Kerry is most qualified because......another thing we need to work on

11. Clark Statements on IWR and other issues
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

12. Dean Statements on IWR and other issues

13. Kerry Fun:
Kerry Workout http://www.miniclip.com/kerryworkout.htm
Save a Hamster http://daemlich.net/2534
Campaign Pictures: http://www.acclaimimages.com/search_terms/john_kerry.html



We have a lot of info put together and we can refute most of the attack issues and we have links to back us up. It's just a matter of getting it organized. I didn't look for Dean and Clark statements at
all and I couldn't find that compilation thread on Kerry's life.

If you've got links or anything else to add to my list...post it. I know there are lots of good articles out there...I only had one bookmarked and the other two I found while digging around today.

And does anyone know where there are better videos of the debates. I can't get the c-span link to work, but maybe it's just my computer.

[Island Blue]

70. Awesome work Goldeneye!

:yourock:

[sandnsea]

71. windsurfer interview

It's still my favorite. I didn't see it up there.
http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5/Kerry.html

Fun pic too:

[JI7]

73. that's the first time i saw this pic

and i'm sure i read the windsurfing article also.

[sandnsea]

75. I know

I've read that article a cazillion times. The pic looked unfamiliar to me too. I think they may have added several, not sure.

[Island Blue]

79. I know I've read that article before

but for some reason that's the first time I've seen any those photos with it. (Although I have seen the top photo of him actually windsurfing.) Thanks for posting!

I always thought that was one of the dumbest slams at him - that he windsurfs therefore he's an "elitist". How stupid can you get. People in my area windsurf and kite surf all of the time. It's what you do when you're surrounded by water and are "blessed" with almost constant wind. Duh.

[paulk]

89. wow! thanks for posting this...

I've been wanting to send that to some friends, but I couldn't remember where I'd read it. I think it was posted by Dr. Funkenstein during the primaries - it was this interview that sealed the deal - made me realize I wanted Kerry to be my next President.

this part -

"I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it's there. I think it's really intriguing. For instance, thinking about China, the people and their policy-how do we respond to their view of us? And how do they arrive at that view of us and of the world and of life choices? I think we have to think about those things in the context of the spiritual to completely understand where they are coming from. So here are a people who, you know, by and large, have a nation that has no theory of creationism. Well, that has to effect how you approach things. And until we think through how that might effect how you approach things, it's hard to figure out where you could find a meeting of the minds when approaching certain kinds of issues."

The idea that we have to approach another country diplomatically with an understanding of how their spirituality affects their culture.. I wasn't used to the idea of a politician having that kind of insight...
It really made an impression on me, because one of the realizations I had to come to dealing with foreign (for me, Asian) cultures, was the understanding that I first had to understand that nation's religion if I wanted to have any hope of understanding the culture.

Clearly John Kerry understands this.

[ginnyinWI]

81. a few more links

Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry speeches: http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/speeches.php?can=Kerry

VVAW writings: http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/

Kerry PAC: http://www.keepingamericaspromise.com/index.html

Congress, 109th: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html

Independents for Kerry: http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/

[Goldeneye]

87. Election Results

Official:
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Does anyone have a link to screenshots of the exit polls before they were massaged?

[MH1]

78. Wow, this is excellent.

I'm bookmarking this thread and I hope to do something a little techie to organize all the great info you guys have put up here. (Since I am so disorganized and suffer from advanced CRS disease). More on that later if I actually get it done.

Lots of great stuff here guys. I sneaked a peek a couple times at work today and really enjoyed reading what you all posted.

To everyone who's contributed:

:yourock: