Kerry 2008? What's he done since the election, anyway?

[bigtree]

plenty . . .

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

[helderheid]

1. I was just about to chew you out but I see I don't have to :)

:yourock:

[bryant69]

2. I would vote for Kerry again

But I wouldn't lay odds on him getting the nomination. If Hillary Clinton runs, she might shut him out - also Gore might do the same thing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SoFlaJet]

4. screw Hillary Clinton

sorry even though I like her A LOT-she is everything that Chris Matthews and Karl Rove and Rush and all the other wacko RWers are PRAYING we're stupid enough to nominate.No thanks get me a Russ Feingold or Mark Warner or a Kerry,Gore or Edwards no Bidens or Clinton (Hillary that is)

[seabeyond]

8. i really like hillary too. beyond a lot on this board i like her as a sen

and like her there representing us. and i do not even want her to run. i just dont want to go thru the bullshit. so tired of stupid bullshit. every male i know already sneers at and points finger to everything.... at hillary. i would not be able to talk about ANYTHING because all in this area, men and women dont like hillary. even kerry didnt have that as liberal as he was, flip flopper (a bullshit played thru out) northeastern...........................

[bunkerbuster1]

11. I would, if it'd keep her from running for President.

but it won't, so, no thank you.

[_dynamicdems]

177. I certainly agree with you. PC is not what we need. We need a tough,

ass-kicking DEMOCRAT!

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Only thing is I don't think Gore is going to run

I haven't seen too many signs. Hillary recently hired James Carville. :shrug: But I haven't seen too many signs from her other than that. I saw an interview with her on CNN late last year and she was asked about 2008 and at that time she said she was only concentrating on 2006 and Reuters reported around last Thanksgiving that Bill met secretly with Mark Warner.

[blm]

17. I think we'll know during the debates - Democrats aren't like Republicans

and don't annoint a person if they don't hold up in the primary debates.

[seabeyond]

3. what an opportunity for nation, lost. how easy to support him in 2008

for so many reason. one will be a lot of time saved, defending lie after lie after lie.....

repugs and media will do that with every person we put in. a whole campaign wasted defending after attack after attack. that wont be the case with kerry

i am rootin for him. or..... to the point he has done nothing to make me not want him. a whole lot to make me want him.

[murray hill farm]

5. Well, there is this also..

everything that kerry warned us about...and a whole lot more..has occured with this admin...most of the country is now wondering and shaking their heads...wishing, if they had not voted for kerry, that they had....kerry in 08 would give them that chance. Hillary is a death wish that the republicans are hoping we will go for and if we do, it will be an ugly thing to watch...she could not possibly win an election for pres of the usa.

[seabeyond]

7. yes that is absolutely a strong reason. i dont know

who/why???? (ok, i do. repugs and media and bill, because she has either already been annointed or.... it is an easy, drama, kill for the repugs. and fun for media) we are being given hillary, today...... i saw it on the news and they attacked like mccain and hillary is the battle.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Yep

:D I think if it came down to Kerry vs Clinton Kerry would win. Not long ago The Democratic Daily reported Kerry was seen as the most liberal canidate. Even over Russ Feingold which really surprised me and they also reported that he was the most searched canidate.

[MH1]

29. Bingo. n/t

[second edition]

6. I would vote for Kerry again. Absolutely.

The party can keep Hillary. I don't care for her at all. All the other candidates don't come close to having what it takes to lead this country. Kerry has the experience, Knowledge and qualities necessary to take this country forward. Gore would be a second choice. Clark would be a good VP. Warner is green and I see him more as an administrator than a leader of the"free world".

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. Imo, Clark would be the least suitable VP imaginable.

He's far right wing, wants to keep the bases in Iraq, obviously including the likes of Halliburtonn and the Carlyle Group providing the wherewithal. Difficult to imagine any Democrat less like Kerry. He's been a mass of contradictions, like Blair seemingly saying at any given time what he thinks people want to hear. Though also like Blair, with an irreducible core of right wing positions.

Edwards, on the other hand, seems a first-rate VP, though his onw man, in Kerry's mould.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Bullshit on your take of Clark vs. Edwards!

Do you even know "YOUR" Edwards position on Iraq today?

Didn't think so! :eyes:
(Edwards...the man that Co-sponsored the IWR - http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution
Supported the Iraq war and stated that he understood it to be for "geopolitical reasons" http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm , who still supported the Iraq war one year later... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 and later became conveniently sorry as coincidently more Americans in the polls started to believe it was the wrong thing to have done--and yet, he is supposed to be the Dove as opposed to Clark?...PLUEA-Ze!--go sell that to the Boys Scouts!)

"We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure. A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity, and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. These objectives mean nothing, however, in the absence of meaningful action. Passive pursuit of these objectives and failure to reach aggressively for benchmarks of progress are unacceptable. Month after month of an unchanging, or worse, increasingly dangerous, landscape in Iraq not only demoralizes the American people, it unfairly burdens those who are already making the greatest sacrifices.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. --John Edwards
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060131/the_america_we_believe_in.php

Here's what Clark says about "Bases" in Iraq! :eyes:

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.--Wes Clark
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html

So much bullshit, so little time..... hey?

[Joe Chi Minh]

422. "Forswearing perment bases? I rest my case. Has he changed

mind about the School of the Americas, too?

[FrenchieCat]

430. He didn't change his mind about the bases.....he was always against

them....so unlike Edwards, he doesn't have to apologize years out.

In reference to SOA, Clark's statements are clear, and if you don't really understand the history of the SAO than understand that Clark wouldn't hesitate closing the school down if it was required...not that he has such power at the moment....

The dumb smear approach in reference to SOA it nothing more than throwing cliched mud at Clark and hoping it sticks. It's like screaming "he's a Republican". Funny that you would throw that out without any information attached to your accusation.....while being a uninformed hypocrite in reference to your Love for Edwards all at the same time.

By the way, What's Edwards take on SOA? Do you know....or should I pull out the quote that I have? (of course, you won't respond.....cause it would mess your shit up in your need to attack Clark with non substancial bullshit).

Further, as much as you want to point the finger at Clark with your lies....you have not yet defended Edwards...who appears to be much more hawkish and politically calculated than Clark.....

[Joe Chi Minh]

432. Look, FrenchieCat, the fact is I can't believe your gall in trying

to defend someone who is so TRANSPARENTLY indefensible. Why would I bother to try to convince you of anything! If you can be convinced by Clark... nuff said. Do you have any idea of his voting record?

All the Dems who had the slightest political clout, were finessed by Bushco's exloitation of 9/11, so they'll all have vacillated to some extent at different times, but with his nibs, it's been a way of life.

I'm going to try to assemble some info on Clark's record, and perhaps you'll be able to find some for Edwards. I wonder which of them would come off worse...

[FrenchieCat]

435. Try not to address me by name, and the gall is yours.....

To attempt to attack a good and effective Democrat.

Go ahead and assemble your smears on Clark...as it will keep you busy from working on what is really required. Your priorities may be confused....but go ahead, make my day......cause I can rebut every fucking single last smear that you can gleen off the internet......

And in reference to Clark and Edwards....I recognize both as good Democrats....but I prefer Wes Clark, and no smear will change my mind...cause I know the facts very well, thank you!

[Joe Chi Minh]

433. Here's a little something to be going on with:

http://prorev.com/clark.htm


And a little of both the more monstrous and the most comical stuff in Clark's CV - there's a lot more of the latter:

"Gen. Wesley Clark was in charge of refugee camps in the 1980s and 1990s where Haitian refugees who were fleeing first Baby Doc Duvalier (and later the new regime installed by the US following the overthrow of the elected Aristide government in the early 1990s), were packed, under appalling conditions. . . In the 1980s, many Haitian male refugees incarcerated at Krome (in Miami), and Fort Allen (in Puerto Rico) reported a strange condition called gyneacomastia, a situation in which they developed full female breasts.

Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center, managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling information that prison officials had ordered the refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals never designed for such generic use. The officer in charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo, and later head of NATO forces bombing Yugoslavia. The documents go on to say that lengthy exposure to the particular chemicals can cause hormonal changes that induce development of female breasts.

THE END OF LIBERALISM
MICHAEL MOORE ALMOST ENDORSES WESLEY CLARK

BUT BRITISH GENERAL MIKE JACKSON PROBABLY WON'T

GUARDIAN, AUG 3, 1999 - If Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war. "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

WESLEY CLARK, THE PERFUMED PRINCE

JOHN CHUCKMAN YELLOW TIMES - The Perfumed Prince declared himself a Democrat. Many Americans may not recognize the nickname bestowed upon Wesley Clark by British colleagues as he strutted around Serbia with his set of platinum-plated general's stars carefully repositioned each day to a freshly-starched and ironed camouflage cap, wafting a thick vapor trail of cologne. His lack of judgment demonstrated in Serbia -- including an order to clear out Russian forces that British general Sir Michael Jackson had to ignore for fear of starting World War III -- should be enough to utterly disqualify him as a candidate for President. But this is America, land of opportunity.

The former general scents, through the mists of his musky cologne, an opportunity for service. Hell, we're at war, and any real general is better than a former male cheerleader from Andover who cross-dresses as a combat pilot. Dreams of being the hero on a white horse beckon. A fatal attraction in the American people to used-up generals is how the country managed to elect some of its worst presidents - Grant, Jackson, and Garfield, for example.

NY POST PAGE SIX - The last thing the Clintons want is for a Democrat from Arkansas to defeat Bush next year," says our spy about the ex-general who is expected to announce his candidacy next month. . . Our source adds, "The Clinton master plan is for a Hillary candidacy in 2008 and they will subtly sabotage the Democratic candidate in 2004.That's why they insist on keeping their personal operative, Terry McAuliffe, in

(Sorry, it cut off here, but you can read it in the above article)

And a little more: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, Frenchiecat... not because of any notable insight of mine, but because of the cornucopia of negatives against Clark and, indeed some of it against his strangely ostrich-like worshippers.

[FrenchieCat]

434. You are bout as bad as the GOP! With your bullshit, bullshit, bullshit...

Your dogs stink like shit....and need shooting, not letting them "LIE"!
I won't lower myself to your hate...because in the end Edwards is not so objectionable that I would try and slander him....with Lies, as you are doing to Wes Clark.

Read this...cause you've pegged yourself!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

In reference to 80s-90s Hatian refugee camps, Wes Clark was not in charge for fucking 20 years of any of this. Wes Clark was in charge of the Southern Command for exactly 1 year....in 1996. Please find reputable sources to put out your trash!


General Clark's last assignment was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean. His previous assignment was as the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff (April 1994-June 1996) where he was the staff officer responsible for world-wide politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.

General Clark is an Armor Officer who has commanded at every level from Company to Division. As the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas (August 1992-April 1994), he transitioned the Division into a rapidly deployable force and conducted three emergency deployments to Kuwait. During the Cold War, he commanded the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (April 1986-March 1988), and the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division (February 1980-June 1982) at Fort Carson, Colorado. General Clark has also commanded three companies, to include a mechanized infantry company in combat in Vietnam.

General Clark spent 5 years training leaders and soldiers at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, and with the Battle Command Training Program (BCTP). As the Commander of National Training Center (October 1989-October 1991), General Clark helped train many of the forces that subsequently saw combat operations in Desert Storm. During this time period, he developed new training methodologies for Division and Corps level training, helping to train 13 Divisions, and he conducted the first ever Corps level BCTP training exercise. In his first assignment at the National Training Center, as Commander Operations Group (August 1984-January 1986), he revised the overall training program by improving scenarios, enhancing After Action Reports, and developing the first Brigade-level training exercise and the first heavy-light rotations.

In addition to his work on the Joint Staff, his other major staff assignments have included service as Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia (October 1991-August 1992), Chief of the Army's Study Group, Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, Washington, DC (October 1983-July 1984); Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC (July 1983-September 1983
http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm
-------------

General Michael Jackson is who's ass you can kiss....I know who's who....and I don't kiss the ass of assholes!

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames? "Macho Jacko" and "Prince of Darkness"!

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........

The first from that article by Elizabeth Drew (a real journalist who writes for The New York Book Review:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO,

a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya.

Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial
Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183"
Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.
----------------------

Perfumed Prince my ass! This is what the Republicans like to call him...so maybe you think you are in good company. Personally, methings you are "Lying" with the dogs you so want to let LIE.

I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time. --Col. David Hackworth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


General Barry McCaffrey :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789

the cornucopia of negatives against Clark is made up shit, promoted by the extremes; GOP operatives, and the extremely stoopid Left - So it appears that you have "help" :eyes:

How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.

Clark gave a very interesting quote that I used in a column in a profile in Esquire. He said the whole question about running against George W. Bush boils down to how much pain can you take. So I think he has some idea of what's coming. I think he has some idea that it will be shrill, it will come from that side of the spectrum, and it will be harsh. I think they're going to try to portray him as a crackpot and as wildly ambitious, and therefore dangerous. The right-wing will definitely label him an opportunist and say he's switching parties simply to become President and he's power-mad.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[politicasista]

9. K&R

Thanks bigtree.:kick:

[FreedomAngel82]

10. This is a great site to keep up with him

:)

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. THANK YOU for that excellent link

It is now bookmarked for the next time some clueless idiot wants to pretend Kerry never does anything.

If only the rest of the Democrats did the amount of "nothing" that Kerry does, THEN we could take back this country.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Don't forget March 11th he's going to be

in New Hampshire.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x74726

For more info

[bigtree]

25. I saw John on a c-span election event, live from New Hampshire, early on

I'd seen a couple of events beginning with one in New Mexico with about 10 citizens who showed up to hear him. John's a good listener and that's what he did most of the appearances, listen after he laid out his agenda.

But, this night in New Hampshire was different. He was at a small home on a cold night and it seemed as cozy and warm as you would imagine a winter in New Hampshire. Everyone was friendly and polite as they waited for John to arrive. He got there late and ducked into the home to a warm welcome. John was the tallest in the room, and the low light cast shadows on his long face. He seemed to be channeling Lincoln. A dead ringer for a beardless Abe. Moreover, he had the air of a traveling legislator going town to town, spreading the latest goings-on from the Capitol.

After a few introductions he set himself in the corner they had provided and began to explain why he was running for president. Everyone listened and applauded when he was done. They asked their questions, typical concerns, fears, gave encouragement.

One young lady, said she was a college student, spoke up and hit john with a question that seemed to light him up. She said that the other candidates were really getting a lot of mileage at her school and she wondered if John could come by and put more effort there. "We can beat them if we work at it." she said. She just needed his campaign to put in the time there. John looked like he got it at once. It was opportunity staring at him and you could see the gears turning. He revived and made the rounds with the crowd gathered like a man possessed. He was getting tugged at by his handlers and aides to move on to the next event, but he was determined to get every last comment, complaint, and encouragement in the house.

I'm a big Bill Clinton fan. I loved the way that he took the time to connect with the citizens he met along the way of his campaign. I remember his big hands clasping mine and my son's at the same time, so big and soft as he lingered there.

John Kerry showed the same love and compassion for the citizens he met along the way of his last campaign, and it was born out of a lifetime of service and dedication to our nation and the people. He overcame cancer and came right back to what he loved the most, us. That's how I see him. He's fighting for us. Still.

[wisteria]

45. Very nice to hear. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

107. What a wonderful tale!

That's one of the wonderful things about Kerry. You know he for sure cares about you. He's one of the few politicians I would ever trust in a life/death situation and I know he would have the best outcome for life. Sometime if you can go to c-span.org and type in his name in the video search engine and look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003. He goes to Littleton, New Hampshire and you can tell this is a small town. He goes around and talks to people in the city and asks them about their jobs, health care and things like that. And of course he just chitchats with people. One older lady asks him if he's a republican and he politely says "no I'm running against the other guy" (something like that) and he says he'd love her vote and is just so nice to her (this is at a restaurant, mom and pop style). He talks to one little girl in elementary age with her grandmother just about various things. He talks to one guy about the economy and he's real clear and respective and takes the most time with this guy. One part he's at a mom and pop store and this little girl comes running to him and gives him the biggest hug and he picks her up like they've known each other for years. He asks her where her parents are and she says she doesn't have a daddy but her mom is there with her and they talk and it ends with him talking to a group of reporters. One young reporter tries to bait Kerry into bashing Dean (this was when he was on "Time") but Kerry doesn't and sticks to his plans etc. Sometimes he doesn't get to really talk to other people like he does some and you can tell he wanted to stay but they had so much time so instead he just gives them his .com site. If you go to archive.org type in Kerry's name and you can see some campaign video's. There's one of his where he goes to this really small town in Iowa and speaks at a school. Afterwords the person with the camera interviews some students and one group says how proud they were he came to their little town. Most politicians skip over them but not Kerry and that earned him their votes. So this is how John Kerry won Iowa and later won the nomination. I have no doubt he'll win it again if he ran. And once you become a Kerry supporter you're so loyal and he's loyal to you too (even to those who aren't supporters).

[_dynamicdems]

226. Finally someone gets it! THANK you! The thing that most people miss

about Senator Kerry is how much he truly cares. When the media portrayed him as cold and aloof, it was just so wrong.

My favorite way of describing Senator Kerry is in Star Trek terms because everybody knows what you are talking about when you say John Kerry is Vulcan on the outside and Dr. McCoy on the inside. Get him mad enough; however, and the KLINGON comes out! ;-)

[_dynamicdems]

188. He's also making at least one other appearance in NH on Sat.

Busy guy!

We like him here. He turned us BLUE!!!!!

[ginnyinWI]

16. excellent site!

This is great. Bookmarked, kicked and recommended. :)

[frogmarch]

18. At first

I thought this was another Kerry-bashing thread and almost didn't open it.

Glad I did. Thanks for the link, bigtree. :thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

19. What a great find, bigtree! Thanks! nt

[Ian_rd]

20. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense ...

I would normally think that a Kerry 2008 ticket would be a disaster because the Republicans were so successful at smearing him in 2004. But "Swift-boating" has since become a commonly used word to mean a dishonest attack to minimize a candidate's military service. After 2004, the strongest attack against Kerry has already been used up and turned into a joke.

He could run with the message that even the liars and dirty politics of Karl Rove will not keep him from trying again, and stay on message highliting the Bush Administration's total failures in all aspects of government.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Or I got it

He should run on "I told you so." ;)

[_dynamicdems]

260. They hit him with everything they could in 2004. They had to go back

35 years and all they could find to say against him was that his wounds weren't severe enough (in their Chickenhawk opinions) for his decorations. That's all they had on him? And even that has been discredited as "Swiftboating."

If Kerry runs again, he will be the cleanest candidate out there. Flip-flop won't hold water as a criticism, not after all the humongous flip-flops the Repugs have been perpetuating. They simply don't have anything else to hit him with. If he can get the nomination, Kerry can take the Oval Office. Getting the nomination will be the hard part. Ironically, Kerry's toughest challenge will be Democrats not Republicans.

[BlooInBloo]

21. I'm with Kos on this kinda thing...

Be as passionate as you want during the primaries, but once that's settled, support the Democratic candidate. Even Cuellar.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. He helped Kennedy spearhead the filibuster against Alito.

He's got my vote.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Actually you got that backwards

Kerry is the one who lead the filibuster with Kennedy's support.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Even better.

[smoogatz]

27. There was no filibuster.

There was a brief, failed filibuster attempt, which was promptly squashed with the help of DINO assholes like Lieberman. Which was no surprise to anyone--least of all Kerry. His "leadership" of the failed filibuster attempt was as noble as it's possible for an entirely empty gesture to be, I guess.

[Dr Ron]

33. Agree that it had limited effect but he kept his promise

To keep this in perspective, it is necessary to keep in mind that Kerry had promised while campaigning that he would lead the veto against a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Row v. Wade.

[Dr Fate]

38. And he LISTENED to the base of the party instead of fake polls.

n/t

[Dr Fate]

37. The other DEMS were too frightened to follow his lead...

...I see that as reflecting poorly on the frightened DEMS, not Kerry.

The frightened DEMS could have listened to Kerry & the base, they refused.

NOT Kerry's fault.

[smoogatz]

39. True enough.

But it's also true that Kerry "leading a filibuster" was an empty political gesture as surely as Joementum's "no" vote on alito was. To the extent that we should applaud such gestures, I suppose Kerry's is worth applauding. But only just.

[Dr Fate]

42. It can only be seen as such b/c the frightened DEMS sided with Bush.

I think Kerry's actions show he sincerley believed that Alito should be filibustered. The actions of the frightened DEMS showed they did not.

You are speculating, an arguably valid speculation considering how cynical politics is for some, but I dont buy into that specualtion concerning Kerry.

[FreedomAngel82]

119. Where's your proof?

Do you know of Kerry's past and the fights he has won? If you don't know about Kerry's past that's understandable you'd think that but this was not an empty gesture.

[_dynamicdems]

248. I don't think it was an empty gesture because it did accomplish something.

Thousands of e-mails, faxes and letters went out to members of Congress. Several Dems changed their vote and sided with the filibuster. They were put on notice by us. The Dems who were afraid to vote for a filibuster were also put on notice. The implications of this call to action go far beyond the Alito nomination itself.

This action was important because it was important to let Congress know that there are a lot of people out here who actually pay attention to what they do and who will hold them to account for their votes. What Senator Kerry did was to empower all of us "out here" who have no voice in Congress but who depend on our elected officials to represent us. In this way, his taking a stand for us was HUGE. He was our voice. True, not everybody listened, but some did. And the ones who didn't...well that told us something, didn't it?

We also learned who we can trust to have our back. Senator Kerry promised us that he would and the Alito nomination was just one example of him being true to his word.

[FreedomAngel82]

117. How do you know it was an empty gesture?

He's not on the Judicary committee and he was away on some trip (McCain, Warner and some others were there too). Only person who knows if this was an "empty gesture" was Kerry and from my own research of Kerry and his past it's anything but an "empty gesture."

[smoogatz]

28. I wouldn't vote for Kerry again. Not in the primaries.

He ran a failed campaign against a weak and unloved incumbent, in which he tried to appeal to the non-existant center. He folded hastily post-election, despite obvious and massive vote fraud. He STILL doesn't have a coherent position on Iraq, as far as I can tell (but then I think the only coherent position I've heard from any politician so far is Murtha's). That said, if elected I have no doubt he'd go after Bushco with all the prosecutorial zeal anyone could ask for, and that would be worth the price of admission.

[saracat]

32. Good luck finding someone who has exactly YOUR position that would

actually WIN. It isn't that his position isn't coherent so much as he isn't saying what you want him to! And he didn't run a failed campaign. Because there WAS election fraud, there is reason to believe he won and despite that, he got more votes than any other Dem candidate in history and that is NOT a failed campaign! But I know , it is all Kerry's fault that the election was stolen. He allowed it to happen. He didn't really want to be Prez and likes being destroyed in public. He is a masochist! And certain posters and DU have so much more experience and insight!:sarcasm:

[windy252]

40. As long as we're on this subject

what bothers me is why did he concede if he thought there was fraud?

[FreedomAngel82]

126. Because nobody knew about it than?

Gee that couldn't be it could it? Remember Nader did the recount in New Hampshire, a state Kerry won, and there was fraud there and that got everything going.

[windy252]

186. I'm not trying to be a jerk

I'm just curious. Actually, I completely forgot about Nader and the recount.

[Dr Ron]

199. Because fraud could not be proven

Kerry's concession was based upon the actual count, independent of the possibility of fraud. He waited to see if mathematically he could win based upon the provisional ballots and the absentee ballots. He found that mathematically there were not enough such ballots present. Kerry was proven to be correct

Decisions on a concession should be indepdent of the considerations of fraud (unless fraud could be proven at the time). Fraud would only play a part if it could be proven prior to the counting of the electoral vote. If fraud could have been shown, the concession would not have been meant anything legally and Kerry would still have won.

Kerry could not use fraud as a reason not to concede without being able to prove it at the time. Considering that there has yet to be proof of fraud, despite well over a year passing, it was certainly not possible that Kerry could have proven fraud in the narrow window between election day and the counting of the electoral vote.

[smoogatz]

43. Your hero worship is touching.

It really is. But the truth is that Kerry ran an insipid campaign, never really differentiated himself on the issues that counted, failed to respond to his own swiftboating, and failed to attack Bush where he was weakest, which was on Iraq's non-existant WMDs. He couldn't, of course, because he voted for the damned thing to begin with, and then allowed Rove to push him into a corner in which he kept trying to explain his inexplicable "yes" vote on the war, and his "no" vote on the supplemental. THEN he said if he had it to do over again, knowing there were no WMD, he'd do it the same way. That doesn't sound coherent to me. Consequently, all he could say about Iraq was "we'll do a better job." Well, maybe. But that's pretty thin gruel when the whole country was aware that Bush was either a liar or an incompetent for taking us to war on false pretenses. Kerry's weak performance left the election close enough to steal, and steal it they did. As for the masochist stuff, I don't know whose post you're referring to--I never said such a thing. Finally, I think Feingold and/or Dean would make excellent candidates in '08; both seem to have a much firmer grasp on the principles of progressive politics than Kerry or any of the DLC corporate Dems.

[fedupinBushcountry]

56. Hero worshipping?

Seems you have a few heroes yourself, very hypocritical. As for your RW talking points, you got them down pat,thats what happens when you watch to much TV and don't do any crital research or thinking for yourself.

[smoogatz]

67. Dude.

You've got your DU Kerry Krew talking points down just fine, your own self. Here we go: Kerry did nothing wrong. He did NOT say he voted for it before he voted against it--Rove made that up. He fired off an immediate and blistering response to his swift-boating that shut those motherfuckers UP. He got screwed by massive fraud, but he was too much the gentleman to say so. How'm I doing?

[fedupinBushcountry]

115. You presume

way to much, and I don't need a crew to talk about Kerry, I can do it well on my own.

Dude, you assume I am one, so on that note, whatever!!!!!!

Oh and by the way, he did vote for it before he voted against it, but peabrains wouldn't know that anyway or how the Senate works, their clueless, just like you DUDE. Did you watch any of the primary debates, his answer was there. Oops, I forgot you read about the campaign.

Oh and by the way, he did fire off at the fucking SBL beginning in March '04, but DUDE,you wouldn't know that, now would you. Do you even know when these assholes first came forward?

He might have gotten screwed by massive fraud, BUT, you need the EVIDENCE to back it up,and if you don't know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud, then you don't know what you are talking about, DUDE. Still haven't answered my question on where were all the other Dems to back Kerry up? DUDE.

Good night and good luck, DUDE.

[FreedomAngel82]

128. Nobody is saying that except yourself

Everybody knows Kerry did make quite a good number of mistakes that could've helped him get even more votes in the exit polling to where they couldn't brush it off. And hey you can have your own opinion but NOT your own facts. Sorry you don't like the facts but that's just the plain truth.

[file83]

64. Not to mention he is a member of

Skull & Bones - the same exclusive Yale club that Bush is a member of. If that doesn't raise a red flag then nothing will.

[Dr Fate]

84. So sez Art Bell & Christian Identity types.

What evil deeds did Kerry accomplish through his college fraternity membership?

Exactly what are you implying with this?

[file83]

146. Glad you brought that up -

because even Kerry himself said he won't elaborate on the topic because it is "a secret".

Don't take my word for it, see for yourself: Kerry on Meet the Press with Tim Russert

Those are his words - not mine. When a politician says he can't discuss his membership in a group called "Skull and Bones" that pretty much speaks volumes about his character.

It's not like the group is called Phi Kappa Psi, a generic Greek Fraternity (big deal). It's called "Skull and Bones" dude. WTF does it take to wake you up? The Alarm is ringing and you are still sleeping....

[Dr Fate]

152. But can you answer my question? I'll ask it again.

I asked you what evil deeds Kerry has performed through his S & B membership.

Then after we clear that one up, perhaps we can touch on his involvement with AREA 51!!!!!!

[file83]

172. I'm glad you are being serious....

...because it convinces me your question has validity. :sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

295. But what evil deeds did Kerry perform against America?

Surely his S&B buddies put him up to SOMETHING?

Care to tell us what that is, or are we supposed to just guess?

[_dynamicdems]

268. ROTFLMAO! LOLOLOLOL! Sorry, this is just too FUNNY! Good Post!

Oh...you were serious. oh....


That's even funnier! LOLOLOLOL! ROTFLMAO!

[JanusAscending]

296. Have you ever tried to get any Masons to give away their secrets?

They take it to their graves! Oh , and by the way "Skull and Bones" is a "secret" Fraternity DUDE!

[Dr Fate]

347. Same thing with the Boy Scout's "Order of the Arrow"

I would tell you more, but I'm a member.

[Vektor]

103. SKULL AND BOOONEZ!!!! BLAQUE MAGIQUE!!

Why, I'll bet that Kerry and Bush are RIGHT NOW drinking goat's blood from a pewter chalice by the light of the moon in a graveyard somewhere wearing druid hoods, too.

Um, a fraternity that a boy belonged to OVER FORTY YEARS AGO raises absolutely no red flags whatsoever unless you are some Dungeons and Dragons obsessed paranoid schizophrenic with an extremely overactive imagination.

I am going to, for your sake, PRAY that your comment was tongue-in-cheek and you don't actually believe that S&B is a relevant issue.

[file83]

149. Well, if you put it that way....

...a fraternity that a boy belonged to OVER FORTY YEARS AGO raises absolutely no red flags whatsoever unless you are some Dungeons and Dragons obsessed paranoid schizophrenic with an extremely overactive imagination...

If it's such a non important factor why can't he discuss the "secrets"? After 40 years (as you put it) and he STILL isn't allowed to "manifest" any of the "secrets" of Skull & Bones?

Well, let's see if Kerry is the "obsessed paranoid schizophrenic" man you have suggested:
John Kerry on Meet the Press with Tim Russert

Well, there you have it. So why do YOU support Kerry, the guy that is such an "obsessed paranoid schizophrenic" that he can't even discuss his membership with Skull & Bones over 40 years ago?

So I'm the delusional one? Quite the contrary.

[Dr Fate]

153. I'll bet he refuses to discuss Big foot & Area 51 too.

What exactly did you want him to discuss? The secret handshake?

It's a non-issue, so he did not discuss it.

[file83]

173. Look at your signature photo - and are the one making fun of me?

Is schizophrenia your hobby or your job? Or is everything just funny to you?

No wonder you support Kerry.

[MH1]

277. Doh! Problem with THAT sig photo?

Well, that just implies stuff that DU rules say I'm not allowed to post. So I'll just

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Dr Fate]

293. But what evil deeds did Kerry perform against America?

Perhaps you could make your case by explaining just exactly what it is that Kerry is DOING through this organization to harm us?

By the way, the sig photo is from the Book "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, '72" ...I guess being a fan of non-fiction political journalism makes me an object of ridicule to the Da Vinci Code/William Cooper crowd.

[file83]

355. Dr. Fate, you wouldn't recognize "irony" if it walked up to you

and slapped you in the face.

If I need to explain to you why (having a SKULL painted with the colors of the American Flag and having Swastikas set in it's eyes as your "sig" WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY saying that TWO Presidential Candidates running in the SAME Presidential ELECTION being members of Skull and Bones is OF NO CONSEQUENCE) is ironic - then you are not as keen minded as I assumed. Let me spell it out for you:


(Skull and Bones)

+

(Old Glory)

+

(Ugliness)

=

(Your SIG!)

Get it? You are funny.

[Name removed]

357. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

360. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

364. You cant answer the question because you would have to make it up.

My sig image has nothing to do with your dishonest suggestions about Kerry's S & B connex. I "got" your "irony", I just did not find it relevant.

I'd like to know what you think Kerry did against the U.S. through these S&B connex- but you cant answer without making somthing up, which is why you are distracting from the issue with a discussion of my sig line.

Could you at least make somthing up or put forth a theory? Somthing? Anything?

[Dr Fate]

378. Please continue discussion of this burning issue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=617615&mesg_id=617615

[LittleClarkie]

404. How very interesting. I bet "Coast to Coast" would be very interested

If not the National Enquirer.

All the dude is asking for is proof vs. "it's possible." Shit man, ANYTHING'S possible.

Gee, never noticed the swastikas before. I thought it was a Grateful Dead image, meself.

I'd be interested to hear of it's origins. And fyi, the Nazis bogarted that symbol from Icelandic culture. I think it means infinity, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, as I always say, S & B is B & S unless you have something more to say than that they both belonged to the same frat. Ooo, ah.

Speculation is fine when you don't have access to info that disproves it. If you knew anything at all about Kerry and his background, you'd realize how ludicrous this particular conspiracy theory is.

[Dr Fate]

427. It is from the cover of "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972"

n/t

[LittleClarkie]

431. Hunter S. Thompson was a Skull and Bonesman!!!???

Oh. My. God.

:evilgrin:

Now THAT origin makes sense, in a Nixonian sort of way.

Sigh. People worry me sometimes, you know what I mean? Skull and freakin' Bones. Good GOD, that ludicrous.

[FreedomAngel82]

180. No no I got it

The initations and their parties. :eyes:

[Vektor]

297. There are no "secrets"...

Get a real issue, huh?

[karynnj]

362. She was suggesting that You are an obsessed paranoid

schizophrenic, not Senator Kerry. I think it needs to be updated to an obsessed paranoid schizophrenic with poor comprehension skills. As to not talking about it, maybe he considers a promise to be a promise.

[blm]

124. Read up on IranContra, BCCi, and CIA drugrunning - if that doesn't raise

a red flag that tells you that no lawmaker in modern history has investigated and exposed more SERIOUS government corruption than John Kerry has then nothing will.

Really - try reading the National Security Archives or the congressional record. Kerry uncovered all those and did it with most of DC opposing him.

[file83]

182. Yeah - and that really STOPPED all those kinds of activities inside

our government to! CIA isn't running drugs anymore is it! Glad to see that he stopped money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking, the sale of nuclear technologies, tax evasion, smuggling, illegal immigration, in one fell swoop otherwise 9/11 could have happened! Oh wait...it did, and then Bush led the charge to "destroying" the financial networks of al Qaida. Kerry must have done one heckuva job since all that corruption was still around for Bush to "dismantle".

But we weren't talking about that, were we? If Kerry was such a bad ass (as you are attempting to portray him) then why did he immediately conceed the election in 2004 without even a hint of pause for investigating the election fraud in Ohio? Why not? Why wasn't this man with such a glorius past of cutting through corruption most valiantly able to stand up to the very people that were attacking his *gulp* character in the Swift Boat Vets for Smear campaign? I couldn't have fucked that up more if I tried. Oh wait...so maybe Kerry did intentionally fuck that up.

By the way - from what blue did Kerry come out of just 2 weeks before the primaries began? It was Dean Dean Dean for like 6 months and then, whaddya know, Kerry pops in out of no where and "steals" the first election. I'm sure Skull & Bones had nothing to do with that. S & B members are NEVER presidents (except for 41 and 43).

Why isn't John Kerry, the mighty Sentatorial Barbarian that he is, doing everything he can to bring down the worst president ever? I'm sure it has nothing to do with Bush and Kerry both being members of S & B - Bush is as clean as a whistle, right? Yeah, no corruption in that administration.

You were saying?

[blm]

237. You want to blame Kerry for uncovering IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning

because he had NO HELP FROM ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT for YEARS - including governors who sided with Reagan's contra policies?

Get real.

And why the HELL did you believe the corporate media who OVER-reported Dean's support on the ground while UNDER-reporting Kerry's strength and calling is campaign dead for months to dry up his funding and knock him out early? Internal polls showed Dean slipping since November, but media ignored it to keep his numbers up.

And NO ONE has done more to oppose BushInc than John Kerry has - too bad too many Dems don't know enough facts to understand that truth.

I swear - you just revised most of history with your little rant that had no basis in reality.

Really - read the National Security Archives and thecongressional reord. Kerry's work is in those historic documents and are part of the historic record, which MATTERS for future generations whether you understand it or not.

[_dynamicdems]

269. I have it on good authority...

It was Voodoo. A friend told me that a friend saw John Kerry in Ohio sticking pins in a doll that looked a LOT like Howard Dean. There you have it. Skulls, Bones and VOODOO!

"That old black magic has me in its spell. That old black magic that you do so WELL!" hehehe

[karynnj]

366. Judging from your posts

You might have actually lost the debates with Bush - by completely freaking out the American public.

PS John Kerry is certainly not a Senatorial Barbarian but a very civilized man. He has no forum from which to investigate anything. We control neither branch of government and he has no supoena power.

Kerry was in NH and Iowa in Dec and Jan. I would think that the work he did on the ground and the reunion with Rassman were a major part of why he won Iowa. Dean imploded - his last couple of debates before Iowa were no good - "I'm not a pin cushion" doesn't play well. It's about the time you get over this.

[FreedomAngel82]

129. Yawn

Believe me I have researched SAB but there's just not enough proof out there they were behind anything.

[file83]

150. "Believe me"....

...why do I find that such a difficult statement to swallow?

[FreedomAngel82]

156. Look it up yourself

or are you too lazy to do that? :eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

131. Oh and one more thing on this

If you have any sort of proof that SAB did play a role why don't you bring it forward? If not shut up about it. Kerry's actions and his record speak for themselves. Not some club he joined when he was a teenager/young adult. Oh and you can quit too. Check out the film "The Skulls." (it's a movie with Joshua Jackson based on SAB from 2000)

[file83]

151. Gee, let's see here....Bush and Kerry were both members of S&B

and they just so happened to be running for President of the United States at the SAME TIME....

Oh, and his dad (George HW Bush) also happened to be President of the United States (41) was also a member of S & B.

It's just a coincidence. Nothing to see here....move along. S & B has played NO role in their rise to power - it's just the luck of the draw. Small world afterall....

Wake up man. Stop choosing to stay asleep.

[Dr Fate]

155. You mean that powerful people come from Ivy League schools?

Tell me no!!! How did this happen???

But seriously,- the fact is, most politicans & businessmen were in college frats & went to top schools.

No coincidence at all, seems to be statistically correct. Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Gore & Jimmy Carter all went to top colleges too. I'll bet some of them were even in (Shudder) FRATERNITIES!!!

Tell us what evil deeds Kerry performed through his S&B connex.

[file83]

206. Oh, so now "Skull and Bones" = "Ivy League Schools"?

When did you change the definition? I didn't get the memo.

If that isn't the weakest attempt at creating a strawman argument, I don't know what is. Gee, how am I to debate against that? Let me think about that...

Maybe because the issue of "Ivy League Schools" wasn't even the question, Einstein. We are talking about Skull & Bones, one single fraternal order at one single Ivy League School: Yale. Not the entire set of "Ive League School". Nice try, though.

Your debating skills are so razor sharp...you sure you weren't an advisor for Kerry's 2004 campaign?

[Dr Fate]

288. But what evil deeds did Kerry perform against America?

Surely the fellow members of this fraternity forced him into performing some evil act against us all- care to tell us what that is, or is the idea that we just make somthing up?

If you cant do this, then lumping in his ivy league/school club resume with those of other DEM presidents is fine.

[FreedomAngel82]

181. And that means what now?

So what. :eyes: Do you have any proof of anything that they were involved in anything? Yawn. This is so boring.

[file83]

241. It's an argument...

...that's it. I'm tired of this crutch you are limping around with demanding "proof" as the only challenge you have to people's opinions. So you say that Kerry is good for 2008 - I disagree with you - but I'm not disagreeing with you because you don't have "proof" that he is the best - that would be a completely unreasonable request for me to demand from you. BECAUSE you can't prove an opinion.

I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with your opinion. You disagree with my suspicions (opinions of skeptisim on S&B) for the same reason. End of story.

Get it yet? No? Okay, let's try another angle.

You claim that Kerry is the best for President in 2008. PROVE IT. Anything you say is just an argument that supports your opinion. None what you say "proves" anything. Just as my arguments that Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones (as was Bush41 and Bush43) and won't discuss it (neither will any of them) only supports my opinion that the coincidence is just to suspicious for me to trust Kerry - it doesn't PROVE anything. That's not to say that you can't disagree with the validity of the argument - you can! But when you fall back on the crutch of requiring "proof" for an opinion, and I can't do that, - you claim that somehow "proves" I can't debate you. Preposterous.

I could make the same unreasonable request to you - PROVE IT - but just because you can't prove that Kerry is in fact the best candidate for 2008 doesn't mean that I win the argument. Get it? :shrug:

Sheesh.

[_dynamicdems]

272. Let's put it this way: if you supported Kerry, I'd be WORRIED.

Prove it to you? LOLOLOLOL! I don't THINK so! The Senator will be just fine without you.

[Dr Fate]

290. I'm not asking you for proof of evil deeds of kerry, but an example.

Fine- you don't have to "prove" that Kerry has performed evil deeds through S & B- but could you give us a vague idea of legislation or some other act of his that was inspired or ordered by S & B?

Okay- you admit you have no proof- but what acts are you alleging, even w/o proof?

[Vektor]

108. Some people are heroic, that's just a fact.

So fucking what if people like Kerry? Why do you feel so threatened by that?

[FreedomAngel82]

127. LOL Gee I guess you didn't pay attention either

[FreedomAngel82]

125. Oh and you forgot something saracat

Skull & Bones!!! :sarcasm:

[fedupinBushcountry]

46. Ok so you say

but where the hell was the rest of the Dems to back him up, with election fraud. Answer me that? Where was Murtha, Feingold, Clinton, Dean, Clark,etc. ?

P.S. It is not vote fraud it is election fraud, if you want to use it at least get it right.

[smoogatz]

51. Kerry was the candidate, for God's sake. And he issued nary a peep

of protest. What, pray tell, was there to back up?

Thanks for the correction re vote fraud/election fraud. What fucking ever.

[sandnsea]

53. What would it take

Lay it out. How much information do we have to post to prove you wrong. What would it take for you to admit you were wrong and to promise to NEVER post another negative Kerry post.

[smoogatz]

57. I'm not wrong.

That's the inherent flaw in your argument. But I do invite you to make your case, for me and the rest of the Kerry skeptics here at DU. I volunteered for Kerry, you know--walked the precincts in the rain, knocked on doors, made my pitch, the whole deal. My wife and I gave hundreds of dollars and scores of hours to his candidacy--and I can't help feeling that he could have done better, been smarter and braver and more aggressive, and that he ultimately sold us out. I still feel profoundly and personally disappointed by his performance, both during and after the campaign. So go on, give it your best shot. Lay out your case in your own words. I'm all ears. But--and this is a big but--don't presume to tell me what I can or cannot post regarding Kerry or any other candidate. I'll say what I think, and if you don't like it don't read my posts.

[sandnsea]

61. Be specific

Item by item. Your exact gripes. The exact things that you say Kerry didn't do. All of it.

Because they've all been disproved numerous times. Yet people like you keep posting your shit. You make the promise to stop posting your shit, I'll prove every one of your gripes wrong.

[smoogatz]

70. See above.

Prove away. But really, I've heard all the DU Kerry Krew's rationalizations a dozen times. I doubt you have anything fresh or convincing to offer. So no promises.

[sandnsea]

72. Exactly, you'll just keep posting your shit

Just as I thought. Right wingers never take me up on that offer either. Have a nice day.

[smoogatz]

80. Same to ya.

If you had anything, you'd post it. You got squat.

[sandnsea]

87. See #85

I know what I've got and I know what you've got. Which is exactly why I'm more than happy to make the challenge. But I refuse to keep posting rebuttals only to have the disruptors continue to post their shit.

[smoogatz]

252. Oh, okay--now I'm a disruptor.

Here's a thread promoting the candidacy of John Kerry in '08, and anybody who thinks there might be better choices is a "disruptor." That's great. And as I said, I'll say what I think, without your permission.

[_dynamicdems]

280. If you went to Ireland and sat down in a pub and started saying the

Irish sucked, you wouldn't be called a disrupter? Actually, you would have the stuffing beat out of you. Same thing. This is a pro-Kerry thread. We can't stop you from posting, but you are gonna take a beating for the disrespect. You don't see any Kerry supporters disrespecting Dean or Clark. We aren't about that. We respect your pro-Clark and pro-Dean and Pro-Whoever thefluck threads because you have a right to support Donald Effing Duck if you want to. We don't go there and disrespect your damn EFFING DUCK, so don't come here and try to pick a fight because you will

1. get one (or many)
or
2. be laughed at
or
3. both

[FreedomAngel82]

136. Gee what do you think this whole thread is?

:eyes: Yawn.

[karynnj]

193. And how many times have you posted your inaccurate accusations

- You say he didn't fight the SBVT - There's a very long thread detailing many things he did. In any prior year, a candidate proving that many accusations - that are in complete disagreement with the official record - are false would have discredited the organization and would have backfired on Bush due to proven ties. Kerry had about 140 pages of naval records. They included fitness reports that spanned the time interval with no unexplainable gaps - all glowing and full of praise and many signed by the SBVT. (so they are obviously liars). They also allowed Kerry to get a higher security clearance needed for his Brooklyn assignment as an aide to an admiral - who liked him well enough to attend his wedding several months after he left the Navy.

- There still is not a smoking gun on election fraud of the type that could have been used to challange the election. The strange thing is the constitution really doesn't have a way to correct for fraud. By the time fraud could reasonably be proven, the state legislature would have already designated the electors. (The constitution assigns this to the state legislature and doesn't even specify how.) These electors would likely be accepted by the 109th Congress. There is time for a recount, but an investigation into fraud and a court case in 2 months (including Christmas)???

-Even if we accepted that S&B was as evil as you say, many Kerry friends indicate that Vietnam had a huge impact on him. He has spent a career fighting the RW and fighting corruption in government. There is nothing in his very public life in the last 35 years which would connect him to deeds done by the Bushes - and he clearly has no use for W. (If you want to ignore 35 + years of dedicated work and focus on a very exclusive fraternity, go ahead. Or transform that idea to the idea that maybe his knowledge of teh secrets is why he has been able to fight them for that many years.)

[file83]

68. I support your position - Kerry let us all down during 2004.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

74. Same offer goes for you, or anybody

Promise to stop posting your anti-Kerry lies, I'll prove every single gripe you've got to make to be dead wrong.

But you have to make the promise and you have to know I will copy it, save it, and post it every time you make an anti-Kerry peep.

[file83]

104. What? Are you feeling okay?

That is a very Karl Rovian tactic you have there - framing your argument to make ME "promise" to stop posting my opinions on Kerry (or as you call my opinion: "anti-Kerry lies").

The only promise I'll make is that I will continue to post my opinion in a free and fair manner. Any other request you make I'll just toss into the waste basket where it belongs. O8)

This is the "Democratic" Underground - not the "sandnsea" Military Dictatorship Underground.

[sandnsea]

111. Nobody will take up the challenge

Nobody wants the truth. Why am I so not surprised.

[file83]

140. You're "challenge" is B.S. because we are posting our "opinions"...

..."opinions" can't be proven wrong or right. You just want to argue, and by arguing you are claiming that it "proves" we are wrong (which we would obviously never agree with you on) and there by, we would have to stop posting our opinions?

You're challenge, in all actuality, is not a challenge at all. It's a circular argument.

If you think you can "prove" anything so definitively when it comes to politicians - you are living in a fantasy land. People disagree with you - deal with it.

[sandnsea]

145. Do you base your opinions on facts?

Or do you just pull them out of the air to support an ulterior agenda. List the facts that you base your opinion on, I prove them wrong, you promise to stop posting those facts as reasons to hate Kerry.

You can still hate him mind you, and post that to your heart's content, you just can't use any of the excuses you've been using to this point, once I prove them all wrong. You have to say "just cuz". That's the deal.

[file83]

168. Ah jeez....okay Mr./Mrs. Smarty pants....tell me the "facts" of abortion..

...you could spit facts all day long - but ultimately it boils down to your opinion. I don't need the lesson on facts and opinions. Save it for your kids.

[sandnsea]

198. Religious and moral views can't be legislated

Which is exactly what Kerry said in the debate when he explained his support for allowing women to make their own choice. That's a fact. You can like that view or not, but you can't say he didn't support choice on abortion. Facts.

I've actually noticed you haven't really posted an opinion on Kerry, just a long line of shit posts with no information in them at all.

[file83]

211. Wow - you've gone down some dirty back alley of discussion - no thanks!

:eyes:

[dogday]

165. Appartently this poster does not believe in free speech

unless it is postive toward Kerry.. Remind anyone of anyone else????????

[file83]

171. Gee....let me think........oh yeah!

[sandnsea]

201. Not remotely

Not by a long shot. But I am getting an idea about the two of you.

[file83]

213. Oh are ya? You haven't made that obvious enough yet...

...are we in "sandnsea's" designated free speech zone? :rofl:

[sandnsea]

217. I WANT you to bring me your facts, I've BEGGED you to

You won't. :shrug:

Sandy. The name is Sandy, NOT Sandra.

[file83]

232. Sandy...

...you started this whole thing out by accusing me of spouting "anti-Kerry lies".

So here is an idea...back up with facts how my opinion is a lie. My opinion was that Kerry let us all down during 2004.

Once you have accomplished that rhetorically impossible task, get back to me. Maybe then you'll understand how completely unreasonable your ambiguous request is. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

238. Post the facts which you base your opinion on

How hard is that??? That's the offer I've made to three different posters who absolutely REFUSE. No one will list their gripes, no one will list the facts that have led them to their opinions.

[file83]

245. Look, you can't even play by the rules of your own game.

How hard can it be? You can't even back up with facts how I lied about my opinion. I've given you the chance and you can't do it. You REFUSE to perform that simple task. --(me mimicking you).

You see where this is going, right? No where.

No where because you can't seem to get it through your head that Kerry let many democrats down by conceeding the election immediately. You have no choice but to agree that the first thing he did Wednesday morning of November 3, 2004 was conceed the election. It's a fact. That is a fact you can bite your teeth into, so bite.

From that factual event, we (me and that other DU'r) feel disappointed and let down because our suspicions about the Ohio vote should have been Kerry's suspicions - he had the power (which we didn't) to challenge the election and make things happen that we couldn't. Now we could argue from here till eternity about "the facts" of what could or couldn't have happened, but that would only be speculation. What's a FACT is that he conceeded.

Kerry conceeded immediately. That was his choice. We didn't like it. I'm not saying that if he had lost the battle of challenging the election that we still would think poorly of him. No way. I'm saying that if he would have at least tried to contest the election then he would have shown that he cared and we would probably still have believed in him. But he didn't, so we don't.

That's my fact. That's my opinion. I'm done. I've fulfilled my end of the bargain, now it's your turn.

You support with FACTS how my opinion which is based on a actual event is wrong. Back it up with facts. Good luck, you're going to need it.

[sandnsea]

249. Skull & Bones

That really says it all. In any event, is this your ONLY gripe against Kerry, the election. And that if I fully answer that ONE gripe, you will have NO OTHER gripes against him and will therefore have no reason to EVER post another anti-Kerry post? Because that's the deal. Otherwise it's just a waste of my time.

I never said you lied about your opinion, by the way, I said the same offer was available to you. List your gripes, I'll answer them, and once I've answered them ALL, then no more anti-Kerry posts because you wouldn't have a fact to base them on.

[file83]

254. Ha Ha Ha.....*big breath*....BWAAA - HA HA HA HA...

Thanks for giving me the satisfaction sandnsea. You make this SO friggin' easy:

YOU on post #74: "Promise to stop posting your anti-Kerry lies, I'll prove every single gripe you've got to make to be dead wrong."
YOU on post #249: "In any event, is this your ONLY gripe against Kerry, the election."

And that was your only response to my "gripe".

YOU NEVER EVEN PROVED my SINGLE gripe (opinion based on fact - as you requested in post #245) wrong. By your rules, you lose.

***CASE CLOSED*** (Unless you want to file an appeal and actually address my "gripe" in post #245 directly. I'm still waiting....)

[sandnsea]

266. So that IS your ONLY gripe

I take it I have your word on that. ONE GRIPE.

Of course, you can see Ron's post below.

In addition. There was a recount in New Hampshire which did not turn up any fraud. The Miami Herald recounted the 3 counties in Florida which turned up exactly what was stated, Dixiecrats. The DRE machines actually had glitches that went BOTH ways, not just to Kerry. Not one county in Ohio has enough valid ballots in question to flip the election, not even after a year of investigation by the various vote fraud people. Every DRE company has machine problems, not just Diebold. Investigations into other elections since 2002 has not turned up one incident where hacking can be proven.

In other words, there was nothing on election night to prove Kerry won. So he conceded. Everything that came to light between that night and the certification, turned out to be a dead end. And after all this time, there's still no evidence pointing to any individual who committed direct machine fraud that can be proven in court, and connected back to Bush, which is what would be necessary to overturn the election.

No reason to be angry Kerry over this election.

[FreedomAngel82]

299. Isn't it funny?

They have no compliant about his actual deeds and actions whether with Vietnam or Iran/Contra or BCCI or anything like that. :eyes: How funny huh? Just Skull and Bones. Makes me really laugh out loud.

[file83]

256. link to my response....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=603777&mesg_id=610901

[Dr Ron]

258. I'll play

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and you are within your rights to oppose Kerry based upon this. However, I must point out that I consider this a very weak argument against Kerry.

Kerry took the unusual step of waiting until the next day to concede. He waited to see if mathematically he could win based upon the provisional ballots and the absentee ballots. He found that mathematically there were not enough such ballots present. Kerry was proven to be correct

If somehow Kerry was wrong and he did get enough votes to win, the concession would have had no legal meaning and he would have still gotten Ohio's electoral votes.

Next question is whether there was fraud. Suspicion of fraud is not a valid reason to fail to concede unless this could be proven. If he failed to concede without proof it would ultimately had made the entire party look like bad losers who were not willing to play by the rules. As one of our major complaints about the Bush administration is that he doesn't play by the rules (ie the Constitution) we don't want to give up the high ground on this.

In retrospect it is clear Kerry was right that fraud could not be proven in the narrow window between election day and when the electoral vote was counted. It's been well over a year later, and no proof has yet been found. Suspicions based upon exit polls and the numerous other irregularities are not suficient proof. Plus, if such proof had been found, Kerry's concession speech would not have meant anything and he could have stil contested the election once fraud was proven.

It is not true that Kerry simply gave up. Prior to election day, Kerry had contingency plans in case of a Gore/Florida type situation. For example, he had planned not to concede but to procede as if he had won and start putting together a cabinet, etc. However, the results placed him too far behind to justify this and he was right in not instituting this plan.

Concession did not mean Kerry gave up. Kerry was involved in investigating fraud after the election. His own brother was personally involved in leading this effort, showing how high a priority this was. Again, if they had come up with the proof of fraud, his concession would not have meant anything legally.

[file83]

321. Your assumption that my one response is the only one I have, is wrong.

It was a fair assumption, but never-the-less, wrong.

I gave "sandnsea" only ONE example because it was just to play her stupid little game and to prove a point. She wasn't able to "prove" me wrong, therefore she forfeits (her rules) the right to even request that I "promise" not to post "anti-kerry" (to be more specific - anti-Kerry in 2008) messages in the future (a totally ridiculous proposition to start out with anyway - like I said, I was just playing her little game).

Despite your well structured and thought out response (a much more intelligent attempt than "sandnsea" made, I might add) it still doesn't neutralize my argument that Kerry should have at least made the appearance of "looking into it". The fact is he didn't take ANY time to look into ANY of the allegations. Kind of a wierd behavior considering all the time and money that went into his campaign. Whether or not "looking into it" for a few days would have made any difference in the election outcome (probably wouldn't have), it would have made one hell of a lot of people that suported him for so many months (and $$$) less convinced that he was just bullshitting us all along - bullshitting us in the sense that he really cared about winnning. Bullshitting us that the 2004 election wasn't going to go down like the 2000 election did. But he did. Like it or not - that is how we feel - NOTHING will change that. Ever. What transpired is history, burned in forever. Words will never change those actions (or lack there of).

And that is just ONE of many other let downs and fuck ups he made along the way. Stupid mistakes and horrible methods of handling his opposition. You know what those were - if you paid any attention to Kerry's campaign and choose not to ignore history. Listing them here would be a moot point - because it wouldn't convince you otherwise anyway. Moot because like the ONE example I gave above, you'd just argue and argue about how you disagree with a, b, & c, etc., ad infinitum. But none of that matters because you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not changing yours with respect to Kerry's qualifications for President in 2008 as an overall Democratic strategy.

I think the idea of Kerry in 2008 sucks and guarantee it would result in a Republican win, again. YOU guys have NO realistic idea of how much Bush's 2004 (and in 2008) voters HATE the idea of Kerry being the President. Why in the hell would you be stupid enough to through that beaten and worthless fighter back into the ring when you know he'd just get knocked out again? Wisen up.

[Dr Ron]

331. Your comments on Kerry are incorrect

You claim Kerry didn't take any time to look into any allegations. This is untrue. Kerry has been looking into the allegations, and there are still court cases in progress which he is involved in. He had his own brother in charge of the effort after the election showing how high a priority this was.

What you preceive is not history--it is your misperception of what occured.

Kerry ran a good campaign, doing better than would be expected facing an incumbent President during war time. You appear to be as misinformed about the campaign as you are to the efforts to investigate the Ohio vote.

Republicans will demonize anyone who runs. The fact that Bush voters hate the idea of Kerry being President is no reason for him not to run. The core Bush voters will hate any Democrat, and the Republican Noise Machine will similarly demonize anyone else..

[file83]

353. Excuse me? You seem to be neglecting the central FACT that

Kerry conceeded the election immediately. Once the election was conceeded immediately - all efforts afterwards of "investigateing" the election were futile. It doesn't matter how much "hot air" Kerry spouted about how he was "looking into" the election fraud allegations after conceeding - like I've said before - I look at a mans ACTIONS. Politicians talk a lot if you haven't noticed. And Kerry's ACTION of conceeding speaks louder than any words or futile research being conducted AFTER THE FACT.

Furthermore, if you think that Kerry ran a good campaign, then you have a loser attitude. His campaign failed. That is FACT. It failed. So your opinion that Kerry ran a "good campaign" is the real "misperception of what occured".

But then again, it just comes back to how you define "Good".

You define "Good" as Kerry's 2004 campaign. Yet it failed.
You define "Good" as Kerry in 2008. Yet it will....?

Based on your "definition" of "Good", you seem to prove my point: Kerry in 2008 is a "Bad" idea.

[Dr Ron]

356. You are still twisting the truth

I've already commented at length about your incorrect assertions about the concession so there's no point in repeating.

The number of people commenting here who support Kerry to run again is one sign that your views on how Kerry ran the campaign is misquided. Failing to beat an incumbent during time of war does not justify your evaluation--he did far better than others have done under this circumstance historically.

[file83]

359. If "popular" support is your metric, then Kerry is a dud. READ:

Being discussed on the DU board right now.

From it you will learn:

The independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll asked voters to rate leaders from 0 to 100 on a "feeling thermometer," with the highest numbers reflecting the warmest feelings. The top 10 mean scores are:

(1)..Rudolph Giuliani.........................63.5
(2) Barack Obama.............................59.9
(3) John McCain..............................59.7
(4) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice......57.1
(5) President Bill Clinton...................56.1
(6) Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards..50.8
(7) Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.........50.7
(8) New York Sen. Hillary Clinton............50.4
(9) Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.............49
(10) Virginia Sen. George Allen...............48.6


President George W. Bush is at 44.1 and Vice President Dick Cheney gets 41.

Notice how Kerry didn't even show up on the study? Yeah, Kerry is really popular. So tell me, am I "twisting" the truth?

[Dr Ron]

361. Your argument is no more coherent

This is totally irrelevant to what has been discussed. There are many more aspects to determine who should be President than such a "feeling thermometer." The opinions of many here is evidence of that--which has nothing to do with making popular support the measure.

[file83]

367. Denial ain't just another river in Egypt.

:eyes:

Buddy, YOU are the one that claimed that "popularity" was the metric. YOU are the one that said that the number of posts supporting Kerry in this thread was the sign that you were right and I was wrong. YOU declared that. NOT me.

I quote you: "The number of people commenting here who support Kerry to run again is one sign that your views on how Kerry ran the campaign is misquided.(sic)"

So by using YOUR own metric I destroyed your own argument, and now you have the audacity to state that my previous post was "totally irrelevant to what is being discussed"!!!???

The fact of the matter is that I'm just holding a mirror up to you and you are now arguing against yourself.

Have fun chasing your own tail in circles. I'm moving on. :hi:

[Dr Ron]

372. You sure have problems reading , or responding honestly

I can see why you have no concept of what happened during the campaign as you are incapable of a coherent discussion here.

All you can do is twist what is said when when you are wrong.

I never said popularity was the metric. Commenters on a political forum who worked with the campaign and see its value has absoultely nothing to do with the the type of survey you quoted.

If you want to discuss HONESTLY we can discuss but if all you can do is twist what is said, there is no point.l

[karynnj]

375. Quinnipeac did the polling

that repeatedly said Kerry was in jeopardy of losing NJ in 2004 and showed Corzine within the confidence interval in 2005 the weekend before Corzine won in a landslide.

[file83]

380. Wow - I hate to do this to you, but Kerry WAS in the survey...

:blush:

Before we start, let's go back to YOUR words, shall we....

He wasn't included in the survey!

<snip>

I worked as a statistician for 24 years, and in all that time no one ever reached a dumber conclusion from a study.

Well karynnj, get ready, because in your 24 years of being a statistician, no one (YOU) ever reached a dumber conclusion from a study.

From the Quinnipiac Study in question:

9. How do you feel about John Kerry?


Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Red Blue Purple

0-20 25% 45% 7% 24% 28% 22% 27% 24% 22%
21-40 16 23 8 17 16 15 18 16 14
41-60 24 17 29 27 25 23 23 29 21
61-80 21 7 33 20 20 21 17 19 26
81-100 9 3 18 8 6 12 10 7 12
DK 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6
RF - - - - - - - - -

<50 43% 71% 17% 43% 47% 39% 47% 43% 38%
50 13 9 16 14 13 13 13 15 12
>50 39 15 62 37 35 42 34 38 44
DK 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 6
RF - - - - - - - - -
Mean 46.3 28.7 63.1 45.4 43.1 49.2 43.7 45.7 49.8

(the copy paste doesn't translate well, but you get the point.)

Feeling a little ":blush:" yet? I'll let you wallow in your 24 year embarrassment. :eyes:

[karynnj]

392. I apologize for the snarky comment

I missed Kerry in scanning the survey. By the way, Kerry's Democratic number 63.1 is not bad - especially after 2 years of consistently negative press.

Many of the others have huge DK numbers. Another interesting thing is that Kerry is higher in the purple states than in the blue - Possible reason is that people in the purple states actually met or saw him.

[Dr Ron]

395. People who actually met or saw him

"Another interesting thing is that Kerry is higher in the purple states than in the blue - Possible reason is that people in the purple states actually met or saw him."

I'm sure this made a big difference. I bet if a study was conducted it would show that people who actually saw or met Kerry based their opinion on Kerry and had a favorable rating. In contrast, those who never saw him and based their opinion on the media were more willing to believe the stereotypes.

I still wonder, if nobody likes Kerry, I see so many Kerry bumper stickers on the road. (Granted it isn't a scientific study). If it was purely ABB, there are plenty of anti-Bush stickers they could replace them with.

[file83]

397. Coming from the optimist you are, how do you explain...

Kerry's overall 46.3 to Bush's 44.1? Especially in light of the fact that Bush's overall approval rating is, what's the latest, 37%?

You are an optimist, that's for sure. Your apology is accepted too. Yet, your comment was a little more than "snarky", but then again, how else would I expect that comment to be characterized coming from an optimist!

[file83]

388. You COMPLETELY changed the content of your post.

Don't worry - I caught ya!

[Dr Ron]

394. Yes, let's live by the polls

Remember when the polls said Kerry was behind Sharpton for the nomination.

As you probably noticed, he pulled out this poll while twisting what I was saying.

[file83]

214. self delete - dupe.

[_dynamicdems]

274. I'm getting the same idea. There are certain ways to yank a Repugs chain

even if they are in Donkey clothing. They just can't resist and they give themselves away. It is rather pathetic. My only question is are they freelancers or are they paid operatives? If they are paid our tax dollars are truly being wasted.

[dogday]

344. There are quite a few posters who are

saying negative things about Kerry, are they all "operatives"? Your notion that we can't argue about Kerry is just ridiculous and your accusations against others are unfounded... But let's go ahead and play the republican blame-game.. If we don't step in line with everyone else then we are traitors? Is that how you really feel?

[file83]

354. Speaks volumes about their illegitimacy of "supporting Kerry 2008"

if their same evaluation process leads them to the conclusion that we are "operatives" for not supporting him. One would have to be seriously off kilter to think Kerry in 2008 would be a good idea. Well, at least we aren't members of Skull and Bones, otherwise, I'd hate to see what they would think of us then!

[karynnj]

377. self-delete

[file83]

389. You were saying?

Now karynnj, you wouldn't be feeling a bit foolish now would you? Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't have completely deleted your own embarrassing post.

[karynnj]

424. It wasn't embarrassing, simply repetitive - so I deleted it

not wanting to make the same point again and again.

[_dynamicdems]

423. Well, it it looks like an...ah...certain substance, smells like a

certain substance and squishes when you step on it like a certain substance...one might conclude....it just might possibly be the suspected substance. Of course it might be something else...but just as odious.

[Dr Ron]

363. Not paid operatives, just uninformed dupes

If the Republicans were to pay people, they would pay people who could present a much better argument than the few here who are opposing Kerry.

They are just misinformed people who for one reason or another aren't willing to pay attention to the facts which contradict what they hear, and therefore they unintentionally wind up repeating Republican talking points.

Unfortuantely, while they are not paid operatives, they do as much harm to the party. Every year its the same story as the Democrats lose and then believe all the Republican talking points. They then go to someone new who in turn is demonized, and then they repeat those Republican talking points. That's no way to win long term.

[dogday]

382. Russ Feingold is in the party and thats the guy I like

Is that ok to say? He is in the Democratic Party... I mean at this juncture it is up for grabs, it is not like he has the lock on this....

Which title do I like more? paid operative or dupe??

Jeez, all because I voiced what I felt and I put up the reference to back it up.....

What is the difference between this post and the ones where people slam Byrd, Lieberman or any or our other reps? It is people's opinions, this party is filled with different opinions... I think sometimes we think it would be better if we all thought the same?

[Dr Ron]

385. Feingold

I also like Feingold.

I just find it amusing when people like Feingold but call Kerry too conservative, considering that the National Journal ranks Kerry as more liberal than Feingold virtually every year. (Granted there are flaws to such rankings.)

As for dupes, I'm thinking more of those who continue to shout the same GOP talking points without any signs of listening to reason, and who have nothing else to say.

[dogday]

391. I don't think Kerry is too conservative, I think he is

an all out liberal... I am saying the campaign was run on a conservative edge and that is my opinion again and what I feel and others as I have produced reference for it.....

[Dr Ron]

393. Might come down to terms

Kerry definatley worked to get the middle of the road vote. Some disagreed, thinking there were more votes to get on the far left, but I think Kerry was right. As polarized as the country is, there were still more votes to get from the middle. Actually Kerry did a good job of this, winning the indpenedent vote. Unfortuantely (putting aside questions of fraud) Bush pulled in more votes by mobilizing the religious right and others. I don't think there is a similar pool of voters Kerry could have picked up by running a more leftist campaign as some wanted.

I wouldn't call it conservative by any means. Kerry consistenly supported liberal principles when he campaigned.

[karynnj]

200. Some how having seen many many Sandnsea posts

I honesty can not think of many people less likely to be a Military Dictator.

Why are you even here? - this is a Kerry thread. I have seen Clark threads, Edwards threads etc where you guys don't come out of the woodwork to critisize - Is it that you are afraid that Kerry is a threat to your favorite?

[file83]

224. Let me explain....

My original intentions were to simply state my opinion that I thought Kerry was a bad idea for 2008. I don't mind if people disagree with me - but when they start telling me and others to "shut-up", hey, they are begging for a debate.

Neither I nor you should ever back down to people that tell us to shut up. People like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh may run their programs like that - but I'm not going to stand for it. I know you wouldn't.

So if you want people like "us" to go away - allow us to express our opinions and we'll be on our way. If you want to disagree, fine, but don't expect you'll get the last word, especially if you (or your friends) tell us to shut up or demand us to "prove" our opinions. That's ridiculous.

So, tell your friends like sandnsea not to challenge people into these kinds of arguments if you want us not to linger. Because we've got nothing but backbone and will not bend to those kinds of pathetic and insulting requests.

:dem:

[dogday]

233. Thank You!

It is exactly what it felt like with a little name calling thrown in to boot.....

[sandnsea]

240. I asked you to list your gripes, NOT to shut up

But you refuse. You haven't posted anything of substance at all, except "I hate Kerry". Why won't you list your gripes?

[file83]

246. look at post #245

Oh, and by the way, you did say "Promise to stop posting your anti-Kerry lies". "Shut up" is a paraphrase of the exact same desired outcome.

[sandnsea]

251. Yeah, once I proved them to be lies

That's what I said. Not to shut up about your opinion. You want to admit you hate the guy just because you hate him, fine by me. Just say so.

[Dr Ron]

259. I responded to this

They may or may not be criticising Kerry because of blind hatred, but they have clearly bought a lot of inaccurate claims about Kerry. Hopefully having answered many of these, and corrected many of the misconceptions, they will reconsider their opinion.

[sandnsea]

262. I want the promise first

Because I know how many times people have answered these claims, and yet they continue. And still continue in this very thread, even though you've posted responses. Like I said, if they hate Kerry just cuz, fine. But that's what they need to say instead of these twisted up excuses that have been proven repeatedly to be wrong.

[Dr Ron]

264. Asking for promises won't help

They think they are right and aren't going to make any promises to you.

All I can do is present the facts and hope they reconsider their opinion.

[sandnsea]

267. Oh, but I'll remember

And the next time they post their stuff, I'll remind them that I already answered it and they promised not to post that stuff again. And when they won't make the promise, then it's clear they don't want the facts. If they had any intention of reconsidering an opinion, they'd say so.

[file83]

322. Do you even realize how many times you said that same

thing in this thread?

Listen to yourself "I'm, I'm just gonna tell them that I already proved them wrong because the they don't have facts and they promised me that if they couldn't prove their opinion like they promised then I won't argue with them because I done already gone and proved them wrong..." and so on and so on.

I played your stupid little game and kicked your proverbial ass. You attempted to hide the fact that you couldn't prove me wrong by pretending that my ONE argument wasn't enough? Yet you couldn't even prove that ONE little argument wrong! Now you think you've won and that we "promised" not to argue because of it?

Chica, have fun chasing your own tail in circles. I'm moving on.:hi:

[_dynamicdems]

276. Good point. Why are they here? I think the answer is obvious.

We needed a good laugh for one thing.

If you think about it: they are here for one reason only. They obviously don't have any interest in a pro-Kerry thread. They are here to stir up trouble. Unfortunately they are not very good and all they are generating from me is a chuckle...actually several.

[smoogatz]

78. Thanks. It's lonely out here

in the progressive wing...

[Vektor]

118. Um,

WE are the progressive wing. Those who seek to weaken the party by baselessly attacking one of the most accomplished and effective Democrats in existence....might just be from an entirely different wing all together.

Anyone who puts trashing fellow Democrats above the better good of the party, isn't really looking out for the party's best interests at all.

Progressive, my ass. That's REGRESSIVE.

[FreedomAngel82]

137. LOL!!

That's the most hilarious post in this whole thread. John Kerry is as liberal as Ted Kennedy. In 2005 on the conservative to liberal scores Kerry was RIGHT AFTER Ted Kennedy. So I guess Kennedy isn't a progressive either huh? Too funny.

[Dr Ron]

176. To be precise

Kerry's liberal scores typically are a little less than Kennedy's (such as in the National Journal rankings).

However, what is of interest, his voting record is the most liberal of all those mentioned as potential 2008 candidates--he even consistently beats Russ Feingold on this. While we don't have comparable scores to compare the candidates who have been governors, it is quite clear they are all running towards the center and are not as liberal as Kerry.

[_dynamicdems]

273. You volunteered for Kerry and he didn't WIN? HOW could he do that to you?

Hey, wait a minute. You volunteered and he didn't win! WELL, you obviously didn't do enough. You gave up too soon. You didn't work hard enough. You must have been too nuanced in your approach. Or maybe you just looked too aloof.

[fedupinBushcountry]

63. Yeah

What fucking ever, how lame. Do you even know the difference? Its a huge difference. But I know it is so easy to use words to bash , but you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about.

Figured you wouldn't have an answer.

[FreedomAngel82]

143. How do you know that??

Kerry doesn't go around and announce everything he's doing (see the filibuster attempt).

[FreedomAngel82]

122. In case you didn't know he did win

He didn't fail at all. Sure he made some mistakes but he, unlike some people, do learn from his mistakes. Look for example at his political career. He ran for Congress and failed. Than later on he decided to try the Senate and he won on his second try for that. Oh and he was LT Governor too.

[_dynamicdems]

255. You can't have read the information posted at the link that started this

post or you would know that Senator Kerry has a very clearly defined position on Iraq (and always has). Yes, reading is tiresome, but you learn a lot. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hear this all the time and it just isn't true!)

You have a right to support whoever you want to in a primary or a Presidential election, but it is not true that Bush was an unloved incumbent. He had a lot of popular support and his base was loyal. Loyalty makes a huge difference. I can tick off names of Democrats who trashed Kerry during the campaign because they were already preparing to run for President in 2008. Bush was a pretty popular President as tough as that is to swallow. People wanted to have that proverbial beer with him, remember?

The very idea of Bush being popular makes us cringe, but we are not exactly mainstream America here. We are liberals. And we have been as much maligned as a group as John Kerry was as a candidate. Remember when liberal was something good? See...they did to all of us what they did to Senator Kerry. We are all John Kerry in that respect. And personally, I don't feel one bit FAILED. I'm liberal and proud!

[MH1]

30. Great link, thanks! HIGHLY recommended! n/t

[Dr Ron]

31. Blog Whoring

This looks like a good time to be a blog whore and point out that one excellent source for up to date info on what Kerry is doing is over at The Democratic Daily:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/

We often get early info direct from his office and Kerry has even posted there. Of course we cover much more than just Kerry news.

The Democratic Daily grew out of The Unofficial Kerry Blog, the first blog to support Kerry before the 2004 primaries: http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/

[emulatorloo]

49. thanks for the link n/t

[Dr Ron]

77. More Kerry Info here

The Kerry Reference Library

http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?

It was started during the campaign to accumulate articles of use, containing articles on Kerry, Bush, and the issues. There are now about 3000 articles there.

[Sensitivity]

34. John Kerry: The man who should be President

The Party would do well to stick with Kerry.

[Dr Fate]

35. He had the guts to lead the filibuster, despite the frightened Democrats.

Kerry also LISTENS and stays in touch with net-roots DEMS better than anyone else.

I dont agree 100% with anyone, but Kerry is my man for 2008.

[FreedomAngel82]

142. Yep

He still has his .com site and he sends out Emails reguarly with what's going on and he's still just as popular with democrats running this year. Even a guy in my district running (Band of Brothers member) got to meet Kerry in DC at that event and he has a picture of him meeting Kerry on his page. :D

[jenndar]

36. Thanks for that link!

What a great resource. I know he's been doing tons, but it's nice to see it all in one place :)

[leftofthedial]

41. well, he voted for the Patriot Act.

and never did "unquit."

[Dr Ron]

50. He also proposed changes to protect civil liberties

While I disagree with his vote, the important thing is what Kerry would do if he was responsible for the legislation. Kerry would be far more protective of civil liberties, and has even proposed ammendments to the Patriot Act to better protect civil liberties.

[leftofthedial]

54. no. the important thing is the vote he cast in support of fascism

period.

[Dr Ron]

62. That is one bizarre way to look at it.

The Patriot Act, while having undesirable aspects, is hardly fascism. To fail to see the difference shows a lack of understanding of what fascism is.

The Patriot Act also contains necessary provisions to update law enforcement to be able to handle terrorism.

[leftofthedial]

110. it is the "legal" underpinning of fascism

investing the executive with sweeping unregulated powers

and gutting the first and fourth amendments.

fascism.

"terrorism"? that's funny!

[Mass]

65. So Kennedy and Boxer support fascism?

Well, I guess that this should tell us a lot about you, in this case.

[Dr Ron]

82. Of course, the whole Senate is fascist by this logic

Considering that the entire Senate voted for the Patriot Act in the first place, with the lone exception of Russ Feingold, they must all be fascists by this logic.

Then (not to knock Feingold, but to show the problems with arguing based upon voting alone), we must also note that Feingold has a lower liberal rating than Kerry per the National Journal, and therefore must be a fascist like all the rest of the Democrats.

[leftofthedial]

275. they all voted to support fascism

that is what the Patriot Act is. It's not even ambiguous about it. It is the legal basis for the elimination of civil liberties, the establishment of an unlimited domestic national security apparatus, the creation of an institutionalized perpetual war, and the removal of oversight of the Executive.

That's not my "logic." That's what the Patriot Act is.

And Kerry and most other Dem Senators voted for it, when the cost of opposing it would have been negligible.

Draw your own conclusions.

[leftofthedial]

112. no, unfortunately it tells us alot about them

[FreedomAngel82]

144. Kerry Co-Sponsering a bill to fix the PA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x74460

Go there for information.

[karynnj]

210. He and others already have legislation to fix the PA .

There was no way we were going to get the Senate bill of last year. Now the new PA bill is in effect rather than the original one - which is an improvement. This new legislation will when we can get enough votes for it correct remaining problems. Seems better than a series of extentions, leaving the origional act in place, and continuing bitter arguments in the Senate.


Text of bill:
109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S . 2369
To require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 6, 2006
Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. OBAMA, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REASONABLE PERIOD FOR DELAY.

Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `30 days' and inserting `7 days'.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS AND NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.

(a) FISA- Subsection (f)(2) of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)--

(A) by striking `a production order' and inserting `a production order or nondisclosure order'; and

(B) by striking `Not less than 1 year' and all that follows through the end of the clause;

(2) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking `production order or nondisclosure'; and

(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).

(b) Judicial Review of National Security Letters- Section 3511(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking `If, at the time of the petition,' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `If the recertification that disclosure may' and all that follows through `made in bad faith.'.

SEC. 3. FACTUAL BASIS FOR REQUESTED ORDER.

Section 501(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

`(A) a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought--

`(i) are relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; and

`(ii) either--

`(I) pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

`(II) are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or

`(III) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; and'.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER SUNSET.

Section 102 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199, 109th Congress, 2d Session) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Other Sunsets-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Effective December 31, 2009, the following provisions are amended so that they read as they read on February 27, 2006:

`(A) Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code.

`(B) Sections 626 and 627 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u, 1681v).

`(C) Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414).

`(D) Section 802 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436).

`(2) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.'.

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Amendments to provisions of law made by this Act are to such provisions, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199, 109th Congress, 2d Session) and by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (S . 2271, 109th Congress, 2d Session).

[wisteria]

44. I would still love to see him as our President. I would support and

vote for him again.

[dogday]

114. That makes two of us... He has the whole package

He is good looking, well spoken, votes his conscience... What more could you want... He is good man...

[jzodda]

48. I don't want him around for another ride

I want Gore, he deserves another chance and I like his style. Kerry ran a pretty bad camopaign from all I have read and what I saw in person. He had too many competing advisors. At the start so did Gore, but he managed to right his ship early on. Kerry, in contrast, did not do so.

[Dr Fate]

52. I think they both ran crappy campaigns.

I dont remeber Gore getting his ship right at all.

HOWEVER- I believe both men have learned their lessons.

I would not be disappointed at all if Gore decided to run w/o Donna Brazille as an advisor.

[dogday]

346. I like Gore more than ever.

He has really stepped up to the plate and is saying things that need to be said. He is not worried about it, he has been through the ringer and back in the 2000 election and we fought the good fight. He tried and I give him alot of credit for that... I would like to see him run again.

[Just Me]

55. He's my President, my representative, my perpetual hope for our nation.

He will ALWAYS be one of the few lodged in my book of heroes.

[ProSense]

59. Very cool! Thanks for the link. n/t

[file83]

60. Kerry in 2008.............HELL NO!!!!

Almost everything he has "done" is just hot air. He "remarks" or "addresses" but when it comes to some very crucial ACTIONS - he let's us down.

I'm tired of people that talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Kerry is all talk.

[Dr Fate]

81. He showed the DEMS what spine is about on Alito- that is action.

That is walking the walk in a big way- not just talk.

What's an example of him just talking about an issue but not supporting it with action?

[father_of_hope]

420. WHAT action?

the failed filibuster? Only someone like Kerry would announce a filibuster with no votes to back it up. Kerry wanted to get some press and give the left false hopes.

If he had spoken up about the election theft back in 2004, we wouldn't have to deal with Alito to begin with.

[Vektor]

97. You're SO right...

He should actually kick people directly in the crotch right there on the Senate floor.

That list of accomplishments, most of which were ACTIONS, wasn't nearly long enough.

He should "address" less, pound his chest, slap the fuck out of people, and set shit on fire more, instead.

Oh yeah, and when that fails, the popular ol' standby with so many, WHINING, - that really works.


:eyes:

[Mass]

66. Great site - Thanks.

[dogday]

69. I never wanted Kerry in the first place, I was a Deaniac

and I am still lost as to what happened in Iowa... I voted for Kerry, but I did not like it. It was anyone but Bush in my book. I did not like the way Kerry turned so Republican Lite and was trying to get everyone else to act that way. Like we were Republican clones. Am I the only person who remembers this?

I will vote for the Democratic Candidate straight down the line, whoever it is, it won't matter. It is time for a change and that should be our mantra-cuz it is time for a change.....

[Dr Ron]

Never happened

"I did not like the way Kerry turned so Republican Lite and was trying to get everyone else to act that way. Like we were Republican clones. Am I the only person who remembers this?"

Hopefully others don't remember this as it never happened.

It has been John Kerry who has argued for the need to stick to liberal principles while so many other Democrats have been moving to the center, or who have been helping Republicans by echoing their talking points about Kerry.

[sandnsea]

75. List it

What was Republican lite.

And again, I prove you wrong, you stop posting your anti-Kerry shit. That's the deal.

[dogday]

83. Look I voted for Kerry

and I have a right to say what I feel... This is America, don't stop my freedom of speech... I felt like a lot of issues were not tackled, we stayed away from abortion and gay rights. The Democratic National Convention was very conservative in my opinion... Regardless, Kerry got my vote and if he makes it again to the top, he will get my vote again, what more do you want?

[sandnsea]

85. List it

What's your gripe? If you people can't make your lists and promise to stop posting shit once you've been proven wrong, you're nothing but disruptors.

[dogday]

89. I just did. I said he never spoke on Abortion or Gay Rights

I said the Democratic Convention in my opinion was way conservative... I also said if Kerry makes it to the top, he has my vote.. Look, you have to accept that people have different opinions here, but I think we all want the Democrats to win in the end... That is the main purpose, anyone or anything else is just fodder for flamewars....

[Dr Ron]

94. Untrue

Kerry spoke out on both issues.

During the campaign Kerry even said that he lead the fight to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Rowe v. Wade, and he kept his promise.

Kerry has also been an outspoken supporter of gay rights. During the campaign, Bill Clinton even advised Kerry to support the anti-gay marriage amendments in states where they were on the ballot, arguing that this would help Kerry pick up those states. Kerry refused to compromise principles in such a manner. Kerry has also been a leading opponent of measures such as the Defense of Marriage Act.

[sandnsea]

101. ALL of it

One fell swoop. Every single gripe you've got. Because right off the bat, he did speak to abortion and gay rights. And I could go get that info, and then you'd just post it again anyway, or some other crap tomorrow. You're the one that said he was Republican lite. I'm willing to prove you wrong, provided you list ALL your gripes and promise to NEVER post your anti-Kerry lies again. Fair is fair.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

109. For asking for a promise?

Wow. Who knew asking people to promise to stop posting lies, when the lies are proven to be lies, would be considered psychotic these days.

[dogday]

116. No for yelling like crazy at everyone who has an opinion

contrary to yours... Isn't it enough we will vote for him if he becomes our candidate? We will support him if he becomes our Candidate and we will not bad-mouth him if he becomes our Candidate. But for now, he is just a guy who lost a presidential election and it hurt us all very much....

[sandnsea]

121. I'm asking for a promise

I prove that the accusations people have made are untrue, people promise to stop posting them. Facts are not opinions, they're facts. If people continue to bad-mouth him, in your words, based on things that have been proven to be untrue, then they've exposed themselves as being more interested in disruption than real policies or progress.

[dogday]

123. I believed I stated this was my opinion to begin with

but if not I will apologize for that... It is my opinion, I don't post fact without reference. I did feel like we were really staying low on issues, trying to get conservative votes, and the middle vote, I did feel that way and I understood why.

Is this the truth, no it is my opinion, the way I saw it, they way I felt.

I will back him if he makes it. I was on his forum the entire time and never said one bad word against him....

[sandnsea]

133. You made a specific claim

You said he was Republican-lite and wanted everybody to act like Repubicans. I said list it. An opinion is based on facts and reality, otherwise it is just inflammatory shit. You don't want to deal with the facts, fine. Now we know what some people are really about.

[dogday]

164. We did stay low to get the conservative and the independent

vote whether you want to admit it or not.. Speaking of having someone's number, you are the one losing it on these posts, chill out... Life is too short....

[sandnsea]

218. Bring it

List the facts. List the gripes. The specifics. That's all I've asked for from the beginning and you choose to attack me instead.

[dogday]

220. Who attacked who?

What? I have and have been called a liar thanks alot...

[dogday]

221. Your ideas have been way off base so far so

go ahead and think what you will of me... I am a God-Fearing Liberal who spoke her mind and got raked over the freaking coals for it.... That is priceless, just cause I don't agree about Kerry, you have an idea about me? What is your idea oh know it all?

Guess what I got an idea about you too!!!!

Thanks to Dr. Ron for posting common sense posts without the dramatic rant.

[sandnsea]

List your gripes, wow, what an attack n/t

[dogday]

230. And you just can't let go of this bone can ya? nt

[sandnsea]

231. List your gripes

You guys came into this thread with your whine, not me.

[dogday]

236. I came in with my opinions, I just stated what I felt

You pounced on me like Bill O'Reilly at a falafel festival.. You could not stand me saying anything derogatory about Kerry.. You went ballistic and still continue to gnaw that bone....

[sandnsea]

239. Again, you made the Republican-lite claim

You said we were all supposed to act like Republicans. I said list the facts, list the gripes. That is hardly pouncing on anybody, but that's all the three of you can manage to do, attack.

[dogday]

334. Read this article by The Nation

After reading this article, you can understand my feelings. It says it pretty well here.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1465


1. This answers the abortion issue I raised-He also said he would consider anti-abortion judge for the SC

2. This also answers the republican lite (and I meant no offense) comment which I apologize for... It was the wrong choice of words to use-let's just say we were going toward the center... You can read more about it in the article

3. Dr. Ron also said he had issues with the convention and someone else posted about Sharpton not getting to say his original speech.. Those were also the issues I raised.



Here are my facts as you have requested....

[file83]

247. dogday - follow my post #245 to see if sandnsea can play

by her own rules. This should be fun to watch.

[dogday]

337. Read Post #334 nt

[blm]

130. I saw Kerry speak about both throughout the campaign.

He was for civil unions just like Dean and always said he would ONLY appoint pro-choice judges and said so throughout the primary and general campaign. Of course you have an opinion - you just can't claim opinion as fact when it's demonstrably proven otherwise.

[dogday]

132. Hey if I am wrong then so be it

But I felt like those issues were not brought to the forefront. Apparently they were. I watched every speech, followed his whole campaign...

[blm]

134. I don't really blame people - corporate media editted most of Kerry's

campaign out of existence to promote their own storyline - not unlike they did to Gore.

That's why I insist that Dems as a party must deal with the GOP control of broadcast media and the voting machines before 2008.

[sandnsea]

135. People who were at DU at the time

Really don't have the excuse of the corporate media.

[blm]

138. That's true - every day most of us would point out how corp media was

lying or covering up for Bush and promoting qualities that Bush never had while shortchanging Kerry and ignoring the issues he would raise on a daily basis.

Then, bam, it was all Kerry's fault, as if we all didn't spend months chronicling the media's complicity with BushInc.

[dogday]

158. I was on John Kerry's forum

I don't remember if we talked about the media, the swift boating and stuff we did but we had to watch what we said cause we were representing him so no far out stuff was allowed to be posted....

[sandnsea]

161. I was an original blogger

So go sell that line somewhere else.

[dogday]

162. Okay here is where the line gets drawn

I was dogday on John Kerry's forum, we went to the Common Sense after the forum closed. Ask anybody, look up the records. I was even a monitor for Common Sense... I said it before and I will say it again. You need to take a fucking chill pill cuz this time you are so off-base, you are wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG WRONG WRONG

Now look who is lying like a dog....

[sandnsea]

179. Dr. Ron posted the news

"don't remember if we talked about the media, the swift boating and stuff"

You don't remember talking about media stories or swift boat stuff??? What forum did you spend your time in? Did you totally miss Pete's D-Bunker?

I was on the Kerry blog beginning in Aug 2003, one of the first ten or so. I was on the forum between Jan and July. I did not like the decisions being made on the forum, and went back to occasional blogging and more time at DU. But there is no way that you can say you didn't have all the information necessary from the Kerry Forum, that's just flat bullshit.

[dogday]

184. I said we talked about the swift-boating but the media theories

were just that, we could not prove stuff so we could not say it... We were all told we represented Sen. Kerry so there was no profanity, no insults, no stories without reference, etc.

Now what is bullshit now? The fact that certain stories were not allowed on John Kerry's forum or that I was never on it? Was on it to the very end.. I was so damn depressed when we lost, It took over 4 months before I could go back and post and then it wasn't the same.

I have told you my feelings, not facts, what else can I say... I can't be as optismistic as you, as he really let me down... It hurt, it hurt us all, why can't you understand that?

[sandnsea]

192. The facts were there

The facts were in the D-Bunker, all facts could be posted and discussed. Criminy, they were discussed, on a daily basis. So to say there was a weak response is just garbage. I don't know what it is you thought you needed to post, but the facts were available.

And I never said you weren't there, I said your claims about the forum were wrong. There were many people on DU who consistently posted erroneous stuff about the Swift Boat Vets at the time, it doesn't mean the real facts weren't available if they'd chosen to educate themselves. They didn't, they chose to listen to the teevee instead. Which is what prompted me to say that there is no excuse for people who were on DU, or the Kerry forum, who had the facts available and just chose to believe the propaganda anyway.

[dogday]

196. You told me to go sell that line somewhere else

What the hell would you call it?

[sandnsea]

203. This line

"I don't remember if we talked about the media, the swift boating and stuff"

Go sell this line somewhere else. Sheesh.

[dogday]

229. Again you don't read

I said

I don't remember if we talked about the media, the swift boating and stuff we did but we had to watch what we said cause we were representing him so no far out stuff was allowed to be posted....


When you learn to read correctly instead of getting all upset and saying this stuff that just is not true....

[sandnsea]

235. So you had facts or not?

Because you posted this in response to the notion that you could be excused for not having facts because they weren't on the forum. So were the facts available or not?

[file83]

250. Where are your "FACTS"??? Respond to my post #245

if you got 'em.

[dogday]

339. Read Post #334 eom

[file83]

257. dogday - I'm sorry, my post #250 was actually aimed at sandnsea

not you. Oops. :pals:

[Dr Ron]

190. I wonder when he was there

The forum was useful in the early months, especially around the time of the primaries.

As I'm sure you will recall, by summer Mike had gone wacko with power and most of us who built up the forum were no longer involved. The forum changed considerably (and in my opinion was dong more harm to the campaign than good). The forum also came quite close to being shut down by HQ a couple of times.

If he wound up at CGCS I suspect he was involved towards the end, when the forum was pretty detached from the rest of the campaign. By then the forum was in such shambles that it is quite possible that someone could have been a regular participant but still not get a good view of the campaign.

[dogday]

194. I was there the last few months of the campaign

you are right... And I probably did not get the whole picture, but that does not give S&S the right to call me a liar about being on the forum or anything else... I think the tone of the conversation has gone way over the top.. Shit I did not know nothing till I came here... Nobody was talking about half this stuff, it was structured and Yes Mike was running the CSCG board and people remember me...

This forum is for discussion not all out total annihilation of opinions if they are not yours.. Remember we are fighting to squash that kind of thinking.....

[sandnsea]

205. I didn't

You chose to interpet it that way. And again, you have your right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I'm talking about facts. You won't.

[Dr Ron]

209. Hate to spend the time to backtrack thru who said what

I see no reason to question your statement that you were involved on the forum or backed Kerry, or in any other way to say you are lying.

Keep in mind, as I mentioned above, that the forum had deteriorated by summer and the way Mike was running it I don't believe it was presenting a meaningful picture of the whole campaign. If Mike thought that issues such as abortion or gay rights might lose votes for Kerry, I could easily see him preventing discusion of such topics in the forum, and banning anyone who didn't go along.

I believe the facts are contrary to some of what you said about Kerry, but to have a different interpretation of the facts does not make you a liar. I just hope you consider what we are saying here about Kerry and reconsider your opinion.

[sandnsea]

215. I did not call her a liar

Good grief, I said to go peddle THIS line somewhere else: "I don't remember if we talked about the media, the swift boating and stuff we did but we had to watch what we said cause we were representing him so no far out stuff was allowed to be posted...."

Of course they talked about the media and swift boating on the forum. There wouldn't have been a forum without news and the media, and the swift boating was the hot topic for weeks. I also asked what forum she spent time in, because I know some sections of the forum weren't focused on all aspects of the campaign.

[Dr Ron]

219. I'm not saying you did call her a liar

I'm trying to avoid going back over who said what.

If she thinks she was called a liar, my intent is to say I don't think she is a liar (regardless of whether anyone actually called her one).

The forum was such a mess after Mike took total control that it wouldn't surprise me if any topic was prevented from being discussed. I don't really recall whether teh media and swift boat lies were specifically discussed in the forum. They were definatley discussed on the blog, in d-bunker, and many other places. It is possible that Mike could have thought that the attacks shouldn't be discussed as this would mean repeating the charges. I don't recall for sure if that is the case, but that would be consistent with a number of other off the wal ideas he came up with.

[sandnsea]

228. I didn't say you did

I have asked three people for something very specific. List your gripes, all your gripes, then if they're disproved, promise to not post them again. Pretty simple. I get attacked instead. So much for honest debate.

[dogday]

225. Yes you did

go peddle that elsewhere means what exactly to you?

[sandnsea]

234. Exactly that

Blaming the forum for what you now say is information that you didn't have available.

[sandnsea]

207. I thought you continued to post news

In any event, the news was also posted on the blog and in the D-Bunker. So my statement upthread stands, if people at DU, or the Kerry forum, didn't have the facts, we can't blame the media on that. They chose to either not get the facts or ignore the facts.

[Dr Ron]

212. No

After Mike went wacko, I had little to do with the forum. Ocassionally I was asked to respond to specific things on health care and I would help them out for the overall good of the campaign, but I no longer handled the news section. Another major change was that previously Karen and I handled the main section answering questions on the campaign and Kerry positions. Both of us also stopped doing that and nobody did this in the same manner as we did afterwards.

[sandnsea]

223. Ah, I see

I didn't pay that close of attention and probably just noticed the health care posts.

[FreedomAngel82]

300. I was a member of the Kerry forum

but much later after the primaries and all that. I only got political there towards the end before voting because that was my first time ever doing so. So I'm sorry I can't back you up. But yes that forum is now gone and some of the mods there made a new one called "Common Sense/Common Ground" and a lot of the Kerry people went there. I'm sure a lot are here too of course.

[dogday]

340. What decisions were being made that you did not like?

What did they do to cause you to leave?

[Dr Ron]

369. Forum

I assume you are asking about the Forum.

Mike had a strange view of the forum in which he wanted it based upon open discussion but tried to strictly control that discussion.

I supported more structure, but also more freedom for members. For example we had news and position statements partially separate from discussion, with open discussion of the articles also in other threads. There was also a formal question and answer section.

Mike opposed our efforts at creating this structure just wanting people to basically have discussions--but then would ban people if they didn't discuss like he wanted. He wound up alienating lots of Kerry supporters, or people who could have been won over, because they worded their comments in a way he didn't like. He wound up banning many of the early Kerry supporters for disagreeing with how he ran the forum. Later the campaign stepped in and wouldn't allow him to ban people as freely, but by then the damage was done and most of the early Kerry supporters no longer had anything to do with the forum.

[dogday]

373. See I came after that to the forum

When I came on board around July, I think, they were strict about what we could say and discuss, man I had a few post deleted and wrestled with them. I think this is where I get my attitude, they were really strict about thing then..... And since I keep everything here is one I received when a post was deleted of mine....

dogday,

Moderator6 has sent you this email from
http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php.


Re: who would you rather have in your foxhole?Your post was removed due
to the fact that it raises some concerns with our moderating team. Our
Meeting Rules state:You agree, through your use of this service, that
you will not use this forum to post any material which is threatening,
invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.
You shall not upload, e-mail, post or transmit to, or distribute or
otherwise publish through the John Kerry Internet Town Meeting any material
which: constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a
criminal offense (including threats of unauthorized access to a computer or
network), potentially give rise to civil liability (including claims of
defamation and/or libel), or otherwise violate the local, state, or
national laws of any country; Do not post unpublished information on troop
movements, military maneuvers, or any other information which may
compromise U.S. national security.Thank you for participating in the John
Kerry Internet Town Meeting. If you have any questions regarding this,
please contact one of the moderators.Best regards,The moderating team

---------------------------------------------------
Please note that John Kerry Internet Town Meeting has no control over
the
contents of this message.
---------------------------------------------------


Regards,

The John Kerry Internet Town Meeting team.
http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php

I just remembered my post Who would you rather have in your foxhole Kerry or Bush? I picked Kerry any day of the week.....

I thought you would enjoy seeing one of these a blast from the past.....

[Dr Ron]

384. Hard to say much without seeing post

Without seeing the post it is obviously not possible for me to say if I agree or disagree with the moderator, but I sure saw plenty of posts deleted which I saw no problem with. It was even worse when Kerry supporters were actually banned because they didn't follow all of Mike's rules.

One example I can recall (unfortunately without the exact text unless I dig thru all those old messages I archived) was a Kerry supporter who wanted to organize to counter Republican efforts to get Orthodox Jews to vote for Bush. He said something along the lines that to some people some of what Democrats said "sounded as bad as the Republicans."

I thought anyone who wanted to organize to go after any constituency should be encouraged. The forum blocked many of his messages until I intervened because of interpreting the above quote to sound like support for Republicans because it indicated that some people didn't 100% approve of everything Democrats were saying.

[dogday]

386. Can you see where I recieved my attitude from

knowing what you know... If you read my post it was

Who would you want in a foxhole with you Bush or Kerry and I choose Kerry any day of the week....

I thought an honorable post to his soldier background and it gets banned... That is too controversial? This is where I got my attitude...

[Dr Ron]

390. Sure hard to see

Again, without seeing the actual post I cannot say for sure. From what you say it is hard to see why they would moderate this. By the time you were there I was long gone so I don't know the specific rules in effect at the time which this might have violated.

Unfortunately they liked to respond with such canned messages, making it impossible to see the reasons. This is another place where I didn't like the rules. It made sense for moderators who couldn't write a coherent message, but I'd prefer to offer a clearer explanation to Kerry supporters as to why a particular message had to be moderated. That's for Kerry supporters--if it was a Republican troll (as opposed to a Republican who might be open to conversion) I was quicker to kill their messages and didn't really see the point in corresponding with them.

[Dr Ron]

91. You have the right to say what you feel

While you have the right to say what you feel, we have the right to respond when what you say is untrue.

"what more do you want?"

For people like you to stop spreading untruths as this helps the Republicans remain in power. Kerry is one of the people best positioned to lead the opposition to Bush and GOP control, but it doesn't help such claims are spread by Democrats. This is about far more than just voting for the winner of the nomination.

It may also be our last best hope for a liberal nominee in 2008. Look at the other contenders--primarily people rushing towards the center. (The one exception is Russ Feingold, who ironically has a consistely less liberal voting record than Kerry per National Journal).

[dogday]

100. I like Feingold, I would like to see him run

and I have an opinion which you don't like, I understand that, but understand this, I am not posting to be an anti-kerry person... I voted for him, I would do it again. Everyone can't feel like you do and you need to understand that. He has my vote if he makes it again...

[dogday]

106. I understand what you are saying and I will try to

watch what I say... I still think it is just my opinion and was not meant to piss anyone off. At least you approach me with a calm attitude and not rant like a maniac.. Thanks for that.....

[Dr Ron]

96. Convention

By the way, I also agree in disliking how he Convention was managed, but that was a matter of strategy, nothing to do with his positions being too conservative. He should have concentrated more on criticizing Bush's record, and should not have relied on his military record as being enough to protect him agains the Swift Boat Liars.

Fortunately Kerry has indicated he has learned from such mistakes and I believe a future campaign will benefit from such experiences.

[dogday]

98. I hope so too, I really do

I don't dislike Kerry, he was not my first choice, I will vote for whoever makes it to the top...

[FreedomAngel82]

148. Remember what happened with Al Sharpton?

McAullife didn't allow any Bush bashing. Sharpton went away from the speech he handed in. Now with Dean running the show I'm sure it'll be so much better in 2008.

[dogday]

160. Yes I do remember that and I did not like that either

but apparently I have my facts wrong, none of that happened did it?

[Dr Fate]

92. "Kerry cant win by just being against everything Bush does."

I dont recall Kerry or Edwards being "Republican clones" at all.

In fact, the media meme I remember was: "Kerry cant win by just being against everything Bush does."

[FreedomAngel82]

154. A quote from Kerry

"We have to offer answers not just anger." I have this wonderful mp3 of a song with Kerry speeches in it and some great stuff he said and that was one of them.

[Vektor]

93. I really don't remember that...

How exactly did Kerry try to get everyone to turn into Republican clones? That sounds a little far fetched. How does somebody try to make somebody else "act like a Republican"?

[Dr Fate]

105. I know- I thought that he "just hated Bush."

That was the media meme at the time- that "Kerry cant win by merely being opposed to everything Bush does..." type stuff..

[Vektor]

113. It's a little odd to suggest Kerry can MAKE anybody do anything.

You can't just "make someone act like a Republican" through the TV.

(?!?!?!?!!?)

That sounds almost like paranoid thinking. Same as those schizos who actually think Skull and Bones Blaque Magique is a genuine issue.

[Dr Ron]

175. The pods

Vektor,

Don't you recall? Kerry was going around the country putting Democrats into those pods. They all came out as Republicans. :)

[dogday]

343. Please Read Dr. Ron

<snip>

But Kerry has backed away from the hard-edged populist rhetoric he deployed late in the primaries. Railing against revolving-door special interests is no longer a climax of his campaign speeches (though a Kerry ad recently blasted Bush for having "taken millions from big oil and gas companies.") Is he heeding the call of the Democratic Leadership Council and stepping toward the right in an act of ideological repositioning (that may or may not register with the small slice of undecided voters in a few key states)? Or is it more an issue of style?

</snip>

Apparently I am not the only one that felt like the party was being pulled toward the center... Call them pods, make fun if you will, but it was a fact of the campaign....


See Post #334 or read the link

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1465

[Dr Ron]

365. Moving toward the center is usual stragegy

Right or wrong, moving towards the center is the traditional strategy and most likley any candidate would have done so to some degree, and there would be writers on the left who protest.

Such movement to attract the center is hardly the same as becoming a Republican. He ran a quite liberal campagin despite trying to attract the center. There remained a vast difference between what Kerry was saying and what the Repubicans were supporting.

[FreedomAngel82]

147. Kerry? Republican-lite?

LOL. I don't think so. Go to c-span and listen to him speak at rallies and even the stuff before he became the nominee (now that's the best stuff there to get to know Kerry). And me a republican clone? LOL. Please give me a break.

[Senator]

71. Not unless he comes clean on both Stolen Elections

Only Barbara Boxer stood up honorably on January 6th, 2005 and acknowledged her failure to do so on January 6th, 2001.

Kerry, like Hillary and the rest, failed us twice.

In fact on Jan. 7, 2001 he sat on Meet the Press with Joe Biden and in unison they admitted to the dereliction of their duty to judge the validity of the unlawful Florida electors. When Russert asked why they didn't support the Cong. Black Caucus, they replied "Nobody asked us." (Even setting aside the truth that thousands demanded it, the affirmative duty was theirs -- as explicitly laid out in Breyer's dissent to the BushvGore edict.)

Beyond that, like Gore, Kerry presumed that the election battle was his to concede. His rationalizations for doing so are not relevant.

He was complicit, through silence, with both election thefts and can now only ask us to go forward with him in dishonesty.

We cannot become complicit ourselves by doing so.

--
www.january6th.org

[sandnsea]

76. The CBC asked him NOT TO

How many times that have to be posted and proven before people like you stop posting that lie?

[Dr Ron]

79. Infinity

"How many times that have to be posted and proven before people like you stop posting that lie?"

No matter how many times their lies are refuted it will be repeated as they don't care about the facts.

[sandnsea]

88. Exactly, so I'm going to expose them

They don't care about the facts which means they obviously have some other agenda.

[Senator]

95. Then he lied to Russert (and us)?

That's what you're saying, isn't it?

But as I said, rationalizations are not relevant. Even if true, he had no right to agree to any such request. The same goes for the theory that "Gore asked them not to." Or the even-worse "explanation" that a deal was struck to share power. And, while I'm at it, fear of life and limb, or tanks in the streets.

They each had an affirmative duty to simply open a mouth. Just to say "No. I will not be party to this."

They all failed. Kerry more visibly than others.

Only Senator Boxer has acted to redeem herself and Our National Soul.

--

[fedupinBushcountry]

120. It wasn't a theory on Gore

go ahead ask Boxer, she said he did. On the other hand Kerry stopped no one from doing what they wanted, and that is why Boxer stepped up to the plate.

[sandnsea]

141. Putting election reform first?

How is it that putting election reform for the people over personal aspirations can be twisted into abandoning the people. Believe me, if Kerry had stood against the certification, he would be blamed for turning it into a political football and taking away the power it would have had if he'd stayed out of it.

I really can't think of another human on the planet that gets the kind of obsessive hatred that Kerry does, especially considering he's to the left of most of the people that those same haters adore.

[Senator]

324. Honesty comes first

Not fear of being blamed for something, nor how far left someone may or may not be. No, not even "election reform for the people."

People feel abandoned because they were abandoned.

Perhaps for fabulous reasons. Perhaps as part of an ingenious master plan to attain all our hopes and dreams for us. Perhaps because trusted people begged on their knees. Perhaps out of entirely forgivable fear of repercussions from murderers and torturers. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

When I say "come clean" that also includes publicly explaining his decisions and letting the people make of it what they will.

---
www.january6th.org

[FreedomAngel82]

157. And what all did she do?

She just stud up and acted like a democrat. What else has she done where it concerns election fraud?

[Senator]

326. Something no one else did

As for "what else," Hillary seems to like what she and Ms. Tubbs-Jones are doing. I prefer the Conyers bill, but no matter.

But really, she need do no nothing else. The repercussions of her stand on January 6th, 2005 may never end.

Whatever the issue or situation, one of our biggest problems on the left has always been defeatism. Our compulsion to "do good" often leads to an overcautiousness about "wasting effort" on something that seems futile. The problem is that often the effort itself has ancillary benefits that far outweigh the importance of the "success" of the effort.

Now, when we hear the usual "never gonna happen" from Dems/libs there is a response.

Mine is to show them this:



And tell people just how often I heard "You'll Never Get a Senator!" right up until we did it.

--
www.january6th.org

[mdmc]

336. What did Sen Boxer do on 1-6-05

:kick:

[Senator]

415. Formally objected to the unlawful Ohio electors

First time an objection was raised in 100 years.

But more importantly it was a successful effort by "outsiders" to get something to happen that no one among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy wanted (including the Dem "leaders").

Their first failure, on Jan 6. 2001, was portrayed in the opening scenes of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. But even he didn't include Kerry and Biden on MTP the next day saying "Nobody asked us" to join the CBC and object to the unlawful Florida electors.

--

[Mass]

338. Actually Kerry and Lautenberg are also original co-sponsors of this bill

[Dr Ron]

169. Agreed to request to help election reform

"he had no right to agree to any such request."

Agreeing to the request of the Congessional Black Caucus to be away at the time was the most sensible thing to do. The fear was that if Kerry was involved it would be seen as an attempt to overturn the 2004 results and be seen purely as a Kerry vs. Bush issue. The feeling was that overall efforts towards election reform would have a better chance of succeeding if argued over the general priciples of having fair elections rather than in the context of a Kerry vs. Bush dispute. This way some who supported Bush might also go along.

If Kerry had been present after the Congessional Black Caucus requested he not be present, I imagine the same Kerry bashers would be attacking him for grandstanding and not cooperating with them. With the logic of Kerry bashers it is easly to justify attacking him regardless of what he does.

[Senator]

323. I would like to "see this request," btw ... but...

...as I said, the strategery of the notion is not at issue.

The affirmative duty was his alone, as an oath-bound Senator.

Nor would such a request have any bearing on his failure in 2001; or his concession for that matter.

When I say "come clean" about it that would include defending his decisions publicly and allowing people to make of it what they will.

--
www.january6th.org

[politicasista]

73. Another positive Kerry thread turning into a flamewar.

Go Figure. :-(

[Vektor]

90. Aw, ignore the naysayers! This list speaks for itself loud and clear.

Any protests about Kerry's accomplishments will not stand up to reality, so let em' chomp at the bit all they like.

[Vektor]

86. I about came in here with a blowtorch!

Clearly, not necessary! :-)

Thank you for this magnificent list.

[XanaDUer]

99. For bigtree

:yourock:

[LittleClarkie]

139. Oh yeah?! Oh YEAH?! Well, here's what I think about THAT idea.

:evilgrin:



Catch us if you can, y'all.

(Yes, I actually have this on the back of my car, among other things.)

[Clarkie1]

159. Do you sincerely believe he is our best chance of winning in 08'?

What he has done isn't the issue...it's if he can win.

To nominate Kerry again would be INSANITY on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I don't say that lightly. This has NOTHING to do with Kerry himself. The man has been STEREOTYPED and SWIFTBOATED successfully by the other side. We can't undo that.

Kerry had a hard time going up against an incompetent president; it will even more difficult next time in a race where neither candidate is the incumbent. In the minds of most Americans, Kerry is a wishy-washy, career politician who will do anything to get elected president...and I guarantee you the Republiocan nominee will not be carrying those handicaps. We can't afford to nominate someone as politically handicapped as Kerry and expect to win.

It won't work, folks. NO WAY.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

[Mass]

163. We'll see. Too early to say,

Your wishy-washy politician got more votes than any other Democrats.

I will support him in 08 if he runs. That is what primaries are for.

[Clarkie1]

166. That is your right.

I just wish Democrats would spend less time voting based only on her their favorite candidate is in the primaries, and more time considering what cadidate has the best chance of winning in the general election.

Ideally, primary voters would take both criteria into consideration, but I don't think that often happens.

[Mass]

167. I disagree with you on the chances that Kerry would have.

But it is your right to think he has none.

[Clarkie1]

170. I don't think he has none.

I can't know that this far out, and without knowing who the Republican nominee is.

However, I do think it extremely likely his chances would be slim at best for the reasons given. I don't think I need to elaborate. You know the Republican mantra that worked successfully against him. It will be easier for them next time if he is the nominee because they've already successfully defined who he is in the mind of voters.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

[FreedomAngel82]

183. And that person IS John Kerry

[Clarkie1]

208. That's the mantra that lost us the 04' election.

I spoke to many primary voters who were afraid to vote for Clark because they believed Kerry was the only one with the political skills and experience to defeat Bush, and we're too timid to vote their gut instincts, or for something new. In short, they were cynical that the best candidate could win. They believed that the best politician could win.

Hopefully, primary voters have learned that the best politician isn't always the most effective candidate.

[blm]

253. Without exposing GOP control of media there is no way ANY Dem could

define themselves when the corporate media was/is in full protecttheBushboy mode.

You think they didn't have 200 Generals and Commanders Against Clark ready in the wings? And Clark could attack those liars in a major speech and no media will cover the speech - justlike they refused to cover Kerry's attack on the swiftliars in front of the Firefighters Convention in August 2004.

[Dr Ron]

261. Plus responding often backfires

Typically responding to attacks winds up with even more people being aware of the actual attacks, but not necessarly of the defense.

On the other hand, they can't afford not to respond.

Unfortunately negative campaigns work, especially when you have much of the media behind you, and it makes no sense to think that any other candidate won't face this.

[blm]

263. I do think Clark is doing the smart thing by working on FOX. He's getting

a good hard look to see how to circumvent them and by the very fact that they call him for analysis, makes any FUTURE argument that he can't be trusted fall mute. Or, it should fall mute - depends on how badly the media is in shill mode then. One thing's for sure - nothing's fair and they don't care if it shows.

[Dr Ron]

174. Kerry is our best shot for victory in 2008

"Kerry had a hard time going up against an incompetent president; it will even more difficult next time in a race where neither candidate is the incumbent"

You have it backwards. The chances of victory are much less going up against an incumbent, especially during time of war. Kerry held Bush to the lowest victory margin by an incumbent President to win reelection. He did as well as was realistic under the circumstances.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

That logic does not apply here. Sometimes the chances of success is greater on a second attempt, due to what one has learned the first time. Other factors will also be different. Kerry will not be running against an incumbent which tremendously increases the chances for victory. He will also have longer to prepare. One reason Republicans win is that the run their veteran politicians who have been preparing for longer than four years, and who are better known. By starting with his base of support from 2004, and continuing as a prominent Democratic leader for the next several years, Kerry can better position himself in a leadership position for 2008.

Having gone thru the attacks of the Republican Noise Machine already is also a big advantage. They will make up lies about anyone. We already know their lies about Kerry, and Kerry will be in a better position to prevent them from doing damage in a second run.

[Clarkie1]

178. He will "be in a better position to prevent them from doing damage?"

The damage has already been done!

[Dr Ron]

185. Damage will be done to anyone

If there's a new candidate, we will have a new pack of lies to refute.

With Kerry we've already heard their lies and Kerry can prepare for them as part of the campaign. It would be less credible for the Republicans to suddenly come up with a new set of claims which nobody heard before.

Despite all the harm from the lies in 2004, Kerry still did better than would be expected by a Democratic candidate running against an incumbent. I'd expect him to do better the next time.

[Clarkie1]

187. Kerry can "prepare for them?"

It won't help him overcome them. Just like before, he will spend an inordinate amount of time defending his record and his character.

The damage has been done;I am sure Republicans would be delighted to have Kerry as the nominee.

[Dr Ron]

191. Yes he can

Yes, Kerry can be better prepared for these attacks the next time.

Sure damage has been done, but similar damage will be done to who ever runs in 2008. The difference is that (unless it is Hillary, where we have already been hearing their attacks on her also) the attacks will be new and unexpected. The midst of a campaign is a bad time to have to respond to invented attacks as it disrupts from the flow of the campaign and it keeps the candidate from presenting their own message.

[Clarkie1]

195. No, the difference it will be far less work for them to run against Kerry

because the damage has already been done.

It gives the other side one less task to accomplish in order to win.

[Dr Ron]

202. No less work

It really isn't much work on their part to make up lies to attack the Democratic nominee with. They are quite good at it. It will be far harder for them to run against someone they can't make up new lies about, and Kerry has plenty of time between now and 2008 to establish the evidence that the attacks on him are a pack of lies.

[Clarkie1]

204. "Kerry has plenty of tme to establish the evidence?"

If he doesn't have the evidence now, he never will.

The "evidence" didn't help him then, and it will help him even less in the future. That was Kerry's whole problem. He was too senatorial, and always on the defensive.

[Dr Ron]

216. He has the evidence

The evidence has been put out, but it takes time to get it heard over the Republican noise machine. Doing it during the height of a Presidential campaign is not the optimal time to do this.

They will place anyone else who runs on the defensive also--but they will have to start their response during the campaign when it isn't optimal.

[Clarkie1]

270. What I'm trying to tell you is voters aren't interested in "evidence"

of this sort. It handicaps him from the beginning, and puts him on the defensive from the beginnning. He's already on the defensive, essentially.

[Dr Ron]

278. You're still ignoring the fact that every candidate will face this

Any candidate will be on the defensive when they start their attacks. At least in Kerry's case we know what the attacks are. Who knows what they will make up about the next candidate.

[FreedomAngel82]

302. So let's see

A man with no political experience or a man worth twenty plus years of political experience? I think I'm going with the man with twenty plus years of political experirence. He knows what to do.

[karynnj]

222. Couldn't the same be said for all those who lost in the primary?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

Maybe they shouldn't run either. Actually any one who wants to run should - and the primaries will select the nominee.

[Dr Ron]

227. Obviously illogical

If the person who won the general election shouldn't run again, then obviously anyone who lost to him in the primaries would make an even weaker candidate.

McCain shouldn't run again because he lost to Bush.

Nixon should have never run again.

In Europe opposition leaders often run repeatedly until the build suppor and ultimately win. I guess we'll have to inform them that their strategy is insane.

[Dr Ron]

242. The Olympics

I've just been informed that there are athletes who failed to win the gold in the 2002 Olympics who were allowed to compete in 2006 Olympics this year. Just as shocking, people who failed to win the gold are being allowed to try again in four years. The same sort of thing is going on in the summer Olympics.

It is insane to think they can compete a second time and expect to win if they lost before. :)

I also hear that there are a few sports teams which have not won the national championship who plan to compete next year. It's insane to think they can win if they lost in the past. They should just disband and stop playing sports.

[Clarkie1]

271. Uh, no.

This time we will win Iowa.

[Dr Ron]

289. You are contradicting yourself

If you claim that things will be different for Clark, then by the same logic it is possible that things will be different for Kerry.

[Clarkie1]

301. No, we never ran in Iowa. Kerry did. n/t

[Dr Ron]

304. Clarke still lost the nomination

If Clarke can lose the nomination in 2004 and then have a chance to win it in 2008, Kerry can lose the general election in 2004 and subsequently win in in 2008.

Once you claim that one thing can be different for Clarke (such as running in Iowa) by the same logic things could be different for Kerry.

You can't have it both ways.

[LWolf]

189. No thanks.

I'm glad to see the Senator busy at work. He wasn't my choice the first time, he's not my choice the 2nd time, and I'm less inclined to "get in line" this time around.

I'd like him to continue doing a good job in the senate.

[Clarkie1]

197. Well said. n/t

[MellowOne]

243. After Kerry conceded, he said

"I'll never stop working for you." Kerry's my president.

[TayTay]

244. Not to mention the fact that he is focused on Dems winning in '06

and is raising money for Dem candidates and spending time campaigning for Dems to win.

The rest will take care of itself later. '06 is all. Anyone who doesn't put everything they got into winning in '06 doesn't deserve to run in '08. Beyond that, well, that's what we have primaries for.

[Tom Joad]

265. His refusal to call for an immediate withdraw from Iraq is inexcusable.

Military families who are organizing against this war want him to take leadership.
http://www.mfso.org/article.php?list=type&type=32

He has done nothing but call for "benchmarks for success" rather than an immediate withdraw. the fact remains that the US cannot (and should not) be successful in making Iraq compliant to the demands of US empire. As long as the troops remain they will be targets of those who Iraqis who have chosen armed resistance to neocolonialism, and they have the backing of the majority of the Iraqi people.

Kerry, nonetheless, sees the conflict in Iraq as "badly managed", not as a criminal act of aggression against the Iraqi people. That is a very different view.

[Dr Ron]

283. Not so different

You mischaracterize Kerry's view when you claim he sees it as badly managed. It was Kerry who urged Bush not to rush to war. It was Kerry who called for regime change in the United States in protest over going to war at the onse of the war.

Kerry's plans are centered around getting out. When Democrats divide by making false claims that Kerry supported the war, or that Kerry isn't urging to get out quickly enough, they just divide the anti-war cause and weaken the opposition to the war.

[Tom Joad]

303. Not to rush to war? You mean he wanted it more planned out?

He was against a "rush" to war against Iraq. He favored the sanctions that were killing tens of thousands. He did not want to rush to war, but thought it would be better to have a greater alliance, working in greater cooperation with Europe. The Europe elite would have appreciated that. A better planned war against a nation that posed no threat to the United States.

To me its like saying one does not rush out and rape and pillage, but that some things should be done more thoughtfully.

The Iraqi people would have suffered. He scolded the President when he hesitated in attacking Fallujah. He said that there should be *more* troops in Iraq.

The Iraqi people suffer because he refuses (along with the majority of his Dem Senators) to call for immediate pullout from this criminal war. He refuses to endorse the antiwar movement demand, it is he that is causing division.

during the first Presidential debate he had with bushie, he said this:
Asked whether US soldiers were currently “dying in Iraq for a mistake,” Kerry replied: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering. I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”

In one of his more chilling remarks, the Democratic candidate denounced the Bush administration for failing to prosecute the war with sufficient ruthlessness. “What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,” he said. “And you have to do that by beginning to not back off from the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists.”

After the election, Bush took Kerry's words to heart, and destroyed the city of Fallujah.

[Dr Ron]

305. No--he opposed going to war

I fail to see why you would want to distort Kerry's position in shuch a manner. All it does is help the Republicans.

[Tom Joad]

306. Care to quote his statements opposing the war before March 2003?

I think misrepresenting Kerry's stand is a disservice to John Kerry.

I think Kerry's position on the war is unfortunate, and is supportive of a criminal action, but should be portrayed truthfully. He did not come out against the use of force against Iraq. He does not support an immediate pullout.

He never regretted, even knowing now what he should have known before, giving Bush ... BUSH, authorization to use force against the people of Iraq.

[Dr Ron]

330. Your statements on Kerry are all untre

See his Senate floor statement at the time of the IWR vote

See his op ed in the NY TImes at the time of the IWR

See his article in Foreign Affairs

See his Georgetown Speech before the war

See his statement at the beginnking of the war calling for regime change in the United States in protest.

He has also said several times that he regretted giving Bush the authorization due to the way he misused the authorization.

[savemefromdumbya]

279. Does he still want to be Prez?

[Dr Ron]

284. Yes

He may or may not wind up running, depending upon conditions closer to 2008, but there is little doubt he is keeping that option open.

[savemefromdumbya]

352. Kerry has a lot of solid experience

pity Gore and Kerry couldn't be twin Presidents

[Crazy Guggenheim]

281. Maybe this time he can get John McCain as his running mate too ...........

:popcorn: :rofl: :popcorn: :rofl: :popcorn: :rofl:

[Dr Ron]

282. More likely McCain will claim this while Kerry's looking elsewhere

McCain has a habit of floating such rumors to build himself up.

More in these posts:

Rumors of Kerry/McCain Ticket Started In McCain Camp
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2121


McCain Has History of Building Up Own Reputation
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2127

[Crazy Guggenheim]

285. Kerry never denied it.

[Mass]

286. Actually, he did.

But who cares about the truth? It is all about bashing.

[Dr Ron]

287. Doesn't mean anything

I wouldn't expect him to deny it. Denying it would only create problems and do him no good.

If he denied it, it would alienate the moderates who bought the media hype that McCain is a moderate. If he said whether he was considering one person, it would have left him open to answering questions as to whether he was considering others. It's best to avoid discussing specifics of who he may or may not have been considering, and often best to just let people think others were under consideration to avoid antagonizing people.

[dogday]

396. You are right McCain has publicly said this.................nt

[fearnobush]

292. John McCain, total shill, worse than Hillary.

He's totally pandering to the wacko fundy Talibush as I type. His whole "make pretend" I hate Bush bull crap was a designed plan to capture mod Dem votes in 08. I for one will not allow that to happen.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

294. I was being sacrcastic.

:popcorn:

[fearnobush]

298. No problem, I'm too tired to focus on all those popcorn dudes

laughing. McCain is a real threat, only a madman would let the Chimp slime and kiss his face like a log cabin repuke like McCain did.

[fearnobush]

291. Kerry in heart beat over Shillary.

Even though he totally let Diebold smack him in the face, I would gladly give him a hundred buck (again) and vote for him over Hillary. My stomach bulbs with vomit when I think of her being our nominee.

[stillrockin]

307. Kerry had his chance

and he BLEW IT, big time. He lacked courage, leadership and self-confidence. He gave up too easily. I am so sick of hearing about what a great guy he is because he does his job as senator. If he'd had a modicum of common sense, he would have fought back and fought back hard when he was being smeared during the campaign. And why didn't he just say to Bush during the second debate, "What the hell is that box on your back?!" We need someone with some brains and BALLS.

[Mass]

341. Too bad for you, because you are going to hear that again and again

BTW, having balls is very overvalued. Half of the world goes very well without.

[stillrockin]

425. Kerry failed us as a candidate.

No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, people ain't buyin'. Yes, it would have been nice to have seen some real fire, spunk, balls, ovarios, nerve, courage--whatever you wish to call it. Hardee har har -- guess Kerry's in the half that goes very well without.

[jillan]

345. It was not Kerry's job to go out there and smear bsh

It was the DEMOCRATICS in the party, and the MEDIA to do his dirty work for him.
The only dem I can recall speaking out and defending Kerry during the campaign, on msm, was
Biden.

Every dem should have been on CNN, Msnbc, ABC, Cbs, etc... and yes, even the Fake news
defending Kerry from the smear campaign.

Kerry was running for President. It was his job to go around the country and campaign
in a positive manner on his strenghts and on how much better this country would be under a Kerry
Presidency. And he did that. It was not his job to go around the county on the defensive.

Bsh never had to go around and defend himself. No, he got to fly around on helicopters to select audiences that had Hollywood type rallies for him, while O'Reilly and Limpo did his dirty work for him.

And yet, without the support of the democrats, Kerry came within one state of winning this election.


And I believe that is why Kerry was so quick to defend Murtha, and other vets who have been 'swiftboated" by this administration. He knows what it was like being left out in the open with noone speaking up, no one out there debunking the lies.

[stillrockin]

426. Boo hoo . . .

and Bush got a dog when he was a kid, while Kerry only got a chicken . . . sniff, sniff. We need a FREAKIN' LEADER, not a troop master.

[father_of_hope]

308. NEVER in a million years

if he becomes the candidate (OJ Simpson has just about the same chance) I would of course vote for him. But that WILL never, ever happen. Bookmark this thread.

Out of so many capable Democrats, how can someone still support this Bush enabler? This man who voted for Bush's war? This man who conceded so fast even his running mate was stunned? All he has suggested, as far as Iraq goes, is that he'd have framed a better strategy for a better war, not that the war policy itself is deeply and suspiciously flawed, based as it is on total LIES and mercenary plunder! Kerry has done our side more harm than good.

And the last thing the Democratic Party needs is a mealy-mouthed, weak, wimpy and middle-of-the-road coward like Kerry leading it. He lost when he didn't call Bush a War criminal, an AWOL National Guardsman, an election thief, and a mass-murderer.

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

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

[Vektor]

312. Oh my GOD, I know.

The phrase "mealy-mouthed" is a dead giveaway. Do you realize that certain RW sites actually coach their trolls on how to disrupt DU by claiming to be a disgruntled Democrat, and taking swipes at the Dems that the Repukes feel most threatened by. (Kerry, Kerry, and Kerry.) Then, after they disrupt the site, they copy and paste their bilge back on the RW site to brag about how cool they are, like we can't all spot them from a mile away, and aren't laughing hysterically at them.

That whole "mealy-mouthed" thing is a phrase straight from the troll training manual. They adopted that phase after hearing Bush called that so many times.

Lame.

[Dr Ron]

335. Other give aways--like claims about support for war

Far more gives away what a stupid post this is than things like "mealy-mouthed."

For example, the claim that Kerry voted for Bush's war. Anyone who still distorts the IWR vote in this manner to claim Kerry voted for Bush's war is either incredibly ignorant or for some reason wants to help the Republicans push this line.

[father_of_hope]

381. lol

everyone knew that by supporting the IWR, they were supporting Bush's illegal war. Everyone knew Bush was going to war, your argument is just as bogus as Kerry's concession speech.

The only Senators that deserve any kind of regard are the ones who voted against giving this mass-murderer any war powers.

[Vektor]

400. Of course, but the overused canned rhetoric speaks volumes as well.

All symptoms of the same disease.

[Dr Ron]

406. It's just so counterproductive

They fall completely into the Rove trap.

Rove is a master at dividing the opposition--such as with the IWR vote which was purely a political trap and not about whether we would go to war.

Unfortuantley these people help Bush by fallling for such traps. They divide the anti-war cause by wasting energy to attack people like Kerry, who was actually one of the first Democrats to attack Bush's foreign policy. They also enable the Republicans by giving credence to their false claims that Kerry supported the war to justify their actions.

[father_of_hope]

419. Kerry himself

was a Rove trap. By far the candidate Repugs wanted to get the nomination the most.

Rove knew Kerry would not make noise about the election theft. We've seen the result.

[Vektor]

429. Kerry himself has a message for you below!

Enjoying your dirt nap, asshat?

[father_of_hope]

371. do you know where I got the mealy-mouthed term?

here, from a very liberal website:

http://www.legitgov.org/shortnews_0805_page_two.html

A true liberal would never support this coward, who voted to give this cancer powers to fight an illegal war.

For those who don't want to click on the above link:

Sen. John Kerry Blisters Republicans 19 Aug 2005 Sen. John F. Kerry told state legislators Friday the Democratic Party doesn't need to undergo an extreme makeover, saying "the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party." And the last thing the Democratic Party needs is a mealy-mouthed, weak, wimpy and middle-of-the- road coward like Kerry leading it. Kerry, you lost when you didn't call Bush a W-ar criminal, an AWOL National Guardsman, an election thief, and a mass-murderer. Go to hell, you lukewarm loser! --M. Rectenwald, CLG.

[Vektor]

399. It's highly popular among the RW crowd...

And a "true liberal" would refrain from baselessly attacking Democrats.

And virtually stealing some lying, penis envying moron's quote in order to do so.

[father_of_hope]

401. Kerry is no Democrat

he's a Bush enabler.

Case closed.

[Vektor]

412. Case not closed. AT ALL. But nice try.

Kerry is an exemplary Democrat. I'm proud to call him my President, and he is by far one of the single most vocal critics of Bush's policies. He was certainly among the first to do so.

What you just said is a bunch of horse shit aimed only at creating division, and launching a personal attack. And I think you know that.

Ya wanna close the case now? Fine. Run along then. Your Rovian lies are played out, laughable, and sadly transparent.

[father_of_hope]

421. Rovian lies?

lol

Kerry himself is a Rove fabrication. By far the candidate Repugs wanted to get the nomination the most.

Rove knew Kerry would not make noise about the election theft. And we've seen the result.

[Vektor]

428. Hahahahaha!!! Why YES WE HAVE seen the result!

Another tombstone for another stupid fucking transparent troll!!!


:hi:

[father_of_hope]

368. you Kerry supporters

are the reason Bush has won and is still in power. And the reason Bush might be able to steal yet another election.

Just let Kerry the loser GO!

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

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

[father_of_hope]

379. i thought

only Republicans resorted to name-calling when they lost an argument.

[Vektor]

416. Hey, you DID just call

Kerry a loser....:-)

Isn't that name calling?

[Imagevision]

310. what's the creedo for fellow bonesman again??

they don't turn on each othe (Bush) or something to that affect?

[Vektor]

311. I think it's...

"If all you have to dwell on is a superstition fueled 40+ year old myth about the "secret lives of college boys" perpetuated by Dungeons and Dragons obsessed schizos with overactive imaginations, then you ain't got dick..."

[Imagevision]

407. Vektor> why do you supppose both Kerry & Bush refused to discuss Bonesmen

when asked in both interviews with Russert??? huh? what do ya think bubba??!!

[Dr Ron]

408. Maybe because it was such a silly topic to discuss n/t

[Vektor]

414. The same reason most of us stopped playing D&D when we were 14.

Because the mythos surrounding it is for children and no sensible adult believes in that stupidity.

Can't you do any better than this horseshit? Skull and Bones? My god, do you believe in vampires too?

I also find it amusing that you called a 98 pound woman "Bubba."

[Vektor]

313. Again, Bigtree, EXCELLENT post.

Great list, thanks!

[Name removed]

314. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

315. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

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

[Vektor]

317. I've read all your recent posts on the board.

Lots of anti-Dem sentiment.

Believe me, I read it. It's crap.

[Name removed]

318. Deleted message

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

[Vektor]

319. While I don't care to feed you for long...

Nice way to focus on one Dem you perceive as "anti-gay" but ignore the fact that THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ANTI-GAY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2148085#2151083

And this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2148085#2153154

Let's talk up those Republicans a little more!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2150060#2151534

Oh, and let's not forget this really disturbing viewpoint I have only seen expressed by child beating, racist right wingers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=571424#609105

More:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=571424#609547

Oh, and this GEM:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=571424#609521

Gotta love that pro-violence talk. Yup, somebody "mouths off" and you have a right to put your hands on them. Hmm...yeah...that's a progressive viewpoint.

That's just a sampling...more than enough. Oh, and BTW, what I said about you wasn't a smear. It was an accurate observation. That slanderous horseshit you just spewed about Kerry, THAT was a smear.

Oh, and moderator, no need to delete this, SHE ASKED ME TO POST IT.

[mdmc]

329. no one is tough with a brick to the back of the head

Hey vektor, did you catch http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=571424#609521 my reply to her?

[Vektor]

398. Yes, she was a nasty disruptor.

She got tomb-stoned, thankfully, and rightly so.. Thanks, Mods!

[Vektor]

320. What a crock.

Just because you have some sort of childish obsession with trashing Kerry HARDLY means that everyone else agrees. In fact, not only did Kerry have massive support from millions of loyal individuals during the campaign - he still has it. I guess his current mailing list of over three million still active donors slipped by your radar... If believing no one liked him helps you get through your lunch break, then whatever. You hold onto that.

The ABB shit was a crock, perpetuated by the Repukes - everyone knows that. It's a bit odd that you'd repeat it like it were accurate.

[Mass]

325. OK, nice - But this is only YOUR opinion

And obviously one that is aimed at disrupting the thread and nothing else.

The millions of people that said to the exit polls they voted FOR Kerry more than against Bush, and the fact that polls showed Kerry as well liked by Democrats as any other candidates are obviously all in our imagination.

Dont be surprised to go directly into my ignore list with such a piece of thrash.

[Vektor]

327. Or...

to the graveyard... :-)

(Thanks, Mods...)

[Dr Ron]

342. Bumper stickers

It is hardly scientific or definite evidence, but I think that any drive down the road demonstrates the support for Kerry. I still see lots of Kerry bumper stickers--much more than specific anti-Bush stickers.

I bet if those people were voting for Kerry as an ABB candidate but did not actually want Kerry they would not be driving around with Kerry bumper stickers on their car.

[mdmc]

328. he fought like hell in Ohio agains the stolen election

:kick:

[Dr Ron]

332. I guess he didnt' do enough for everyone

He definately fought, but note above some are uanware of it.

They are far more concerend with showmanship than the hard work it actually takes, partially behind the scenes, to actually achieve change. The type of "fighting" they apparently want would only have reduced the chances for real voter reform and make the Democrats look like a bunch of sore losers.

[mdmc]

333. at least he didn't stand in the way of david Cobb and Nader

:kick: for Kerry - one of our best liberals, imo.

[iconoclastNYC]

348. His campaign SUCKED.

The people he picked to run it were aweful.

He ran a bad campaign. He was the ABB candidate and hopefully this time around we'll have someone who generates real enthusiasm win the nomination.

And he's DLC.

[saracat]

349. Not true, and he hasn't been in the DLC for years.

But don't let the facts color your thinking.

[iconoclastNYC]

350. What do you mean

So he voted for the DLC before he voted against it? ;)

Another flip flop?

Kerry is damaged goods. We need a fresh outsider. Someone who is likeable and charismatic. Someone who can convincingly speak the language of progressive populism and bring nonvoters to the polls.

Kerry is not this person. He's a boring beltway insider. Aloof and out of touch. A walking, breathing epitome of the eastern elitist Democrat.

He's a great Senator and that's where he belongs.

[Mass]

358. You assimilate RW talking points nicely.

This thread is great. It allowed me to update my ignore list. All those who cant do anything else than spewing Rove talking points.

Interestingly, only a couple people have said they opposed Kerry on issues. The other ones are just repeating what they read in the MSM.

[WildEyedLiberal]

370. You've got the Rove talking points down pat

It's creepy, almost. You just recited EVERY Fox News/Hannity talking point about Kerry, minus one - you haven't accused him of faking his medals yet. Other than that, you really must listen to Hannity a lot, because you NAILED it.

[Vektor]

403. Really?

He wasn't elitist, boring, or out of touch when he was sitting in a little Irish pub in Boston with a bunch of DUers drinking Guinness and Bass and cracking jokes and paying the tab.

I guess you and I must know a different John Kerry.

[blm]

409. It would've been better if even Dems had stopped LYING about him

just long enough to research the truth.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040315/corn

If he was just ABB for some, then I would call that person an ill-informed voter.

[ProSense]

351. Wow! This is a really long thread. Very relevant. Great OP. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

374. Once again, thanks for the post

This thread proves my point that any positive thread about Kerry is the best kind of troll-bait.

Look how many people of questionable honesty and intelligence have come onto this thread for the EXPRESS purpose of bashing Kerry using right-wing Rovian smears and lies?

Did you realize that many trolls come from Freeperville and the "site that must not be named" and are engaged in an orchestrated campaign against Democrats who threaten them? Clearly, Kerry is their biggest thread, since you never see such obvious trolling and disrupting in the threads about any other Dem leader (with the possible exception of Clark).

Does anyone remember seventhson, the freeper troll who outed himself on election night? All he did was try to spread ill will about John Kerry, often using moronic crap like Skull and Bones that only a retarded 14 year old who plays too much Magic: The Gathering would actually believe.

Hmm, some in this thread are using the EXACT SAME TACTICS as a freeper troll who outed himself after the election in order to smear Kerry. A freeper who was clearly so threatened by Kerry that he smeared him through the primary season endlessly with the same shit we are seeing on this thread. Why might that be....

Hmmm, indeed.

[bigtree]

383. It's run it's course, not what I intended . . .

I'd sure like to see 300+ hits on the article I wrote . . .;-) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=614624&mesg_id=614624

lol

[Dr Ron]

387. Typical for a Kerry post

It is quite typical for a pro-Kerry type to bring the usual Kerry bashers out of the woodwork and turn into threads like this.

Things were calmer for a few weeks, so I guess everyone was ready to debate again.

[Vektor]

402. Like cancer, they often return once excised.

They grab a new screen name and start the bullshit all over again. And the RW sites teach them how to do this. Somehow, they feel proud of themselves for disrupting a website.

(?!?!?!)

It's kind of sad - but also a little annoying when intelligent adults are trying to have a discussion which is continuously interrupted by childish stupidity.

I'm not sure what it is about these types of trolls. Why they have such a knee-jerk, rabid, Pavlovian response to the name "Kerry." A great deal of it is ignorance and envy, as well as feeling threatened by the man. That's obvious, but there is also a deeply seated pathos that causes them to constantly seek attention (even if it's negative) and a sadly misguided belief that their delusional rants are going to turn sensible, well-informed supporters of Kerry against him. Lastly, there is a very overinflated sense of entitlement that actually causes some of these poor fools to believe that they are miserable and self-loathing because of something John Kerry did or didn't do - like they have forgotten somewhere along the line that they, and ONLY they are responsible for their own happiness and contentment. John Kerry didn't do what they wanted? Well, that's a cardinal sin, right? He shouldn't even take a shit without consulting with these individuals, apparently. It's a really weird, almost co-dependent, stalkerish type of obsession that keeps them returning to these threads, over and over again, often with new screen names after being tomb-stoned.

What-the-fuck-ever.

They are wasting their time as well as making fools of themselves, but maybe these pathetic attempts at getting attention are the only hollow victories their sad little lives have ever seen.

Edit: Bigtree, this post was wonderful. Any person worthy of admiration, who does great things as Kerry does is bound to draw attacks from lesser men (and women.) Don't let that stop you from showing your appreciation for these heroic individuals.

[bigtree]

405. It's not just trolls, though there are those . . .

but there are also folks who feel passionately about their choices and they are ambitious and optimistic about getting their candidate to the general election. That's good energy that can be channeled to the party's favor this early out, a good way away from the end of the Bush regime.

It doesn't matter if we don't have the same horse, just so long as we make sure we're prepared to get behind our nominee in the general against the republicans. In the meantime, we can't afford to spend much time over-analyzing our own candidates to the exclusion of a direct focus on the opposition. Lot's to do there that we all can agree on. That's the way I would approach the politics of it all.

I'd certainly want to spend a good deal of time promoting my candidate's agenda and record as I wouldn't expect to get much mileage from my opponent or the media. Secondly, I'd want to spend time dissecting the record and agenda of the opposition. Overall, I would take whatever time I had to spare to reach out and listen to the concerns of the actual voters I want to influence.

The rest, including all of the internal party acrimony and recrimination that goes with political battles, will sort itself out without a lot of fuel from me.



my direct attack on the opposition:

Rudiments of a Tyrant's Reign http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x614624

[Vektor]

411. Definitely -

It's the nastiness and personal, baseless attacks that are the problem, I agree. There is a huge difference between preferring another candidate and viciously attacking someone just because they aren't your preferred person. I have some Dems I like more or less than others. Do I need to berate somebody because they aren't my number one choice, or because I disagreed with a vote they cast? No. Does ANYONE need to do that? No again.

[Dr Ron]

410. Top Signs of The Hopeless Kerry Haters

It sure is guaranteed that a positive post on Kerry will bring out the usual crowd of Kerry-bashers, including a handful of real wackos.

How to tell those who are really out of touch (any one sign is diagnostic):

Claiming Kerry is no Democrat, or a conservative. (Amazing how he has the most liberal ranking of any Democrat mentioned for 2008 per National Journal)

Claiming Kerry supported the war. (Anyone who still buys the GOP line on the IWR either isn't paying attention or has a different agenda than ours)

Bashing Kerry for his concession, ignoring all his efforts for election reform. (I guess these people would only be happy if Kerry and Teresa were out fighting in the streets)

And, the most obvious sign--any mention of Skull and Bones.

[Vektor]

413. I actually feel sorry for them.

They are so filled with misdirected rage they must have gastric ulcers the size of dinner plates.

[Dr Ron]

417. That's why they have proton pump inhibitors and H-2 blockers

So you are saying they have holes in their stomach as well as holes in their heads?

[Vektor]

418. I suspect that is the case.

Holes in their stories and their logic too, it would seem.

[mariecurie]

436. An interesting read

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm

What makes it so staggering that we could have a Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones, Kerry versus Bush election is that this is a tiny tiny club. There are only 800 living members. Only 15 per year. It's staggering that two of them could be facing off for the presidency and so many of them have achieved positions of prominence. One of the interesting and I think disturbing things about Skull and Bones is that its purpose is to get members into positions of power and have those members hire other members into prestigious positions. This is something we have seen with George W. Bush since his ascendancy to the presidency, he has put several Bones members into prestigious positions, such as Bill Donaldson, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The number two and number three guys in the Justice Department, the guy that puts out all of Bush's secrecy memos. His assistant Attorney General is a major Bonesman. Bonesman Frederick Smith was Bush's top choice for Secretary of Defense until he had to withdraw for health reasons. The general council of the Office of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense’s representative to Europe. The list goes on and on and on. That's something that's interesting, because George W. Bush likes to feign his distance from Yale, from Bones, from Northeastern establishment elite connections, and yet he's going ahead and following Skull and Bones to the letter.