Let's face it -- Kerry really IS a flip-flopper

[CatWoman]

Let me begin by saying that 75% of the Senate also shares that trait.

I watched the Mark Crispin Miller replay earlier today, and it scared the shit out of me.

Most alarming was the fact that no Democrat in Congress (read: the Senate) wants to do anything about it.

Furthermore, I simply can't understand why John Kerry adamantly denied his conversation with Miller.

I believe Miller.

[roguevalley]

1. I agree. If nothing else, the climate has changed and he can say

what he thinks without reprecussions. He has a tin ear if nothing else.

[CatWoman]

3. I know I'm going to catch a lot of heat for this thread

but hey, as Chimpy sputtered, "BRING EM ON!!"

[roguevalley]

26. I noticed your grit for posting it. :) That is why I seconded your

post. I agree also, by the way.

[Individualist]

85. No heat from me

I also believe Miller.

[Charlie Brown]

88. May I ask why? n/t

[Toots]

144. Well he isn't a "Politician" for one thing

Politicians are viewed as the least trustworthy by majority of Americans. Used Car Salesmen and Lawyers come in way after Politicians.... just saying....

[confludemocrat]

143. Thanks for bringing this up

You are not alone in concluding that he is indeed a flip-flopper, something I only arrived at with great reluctance. But I think you have defended JFK here at DU (including to me, I think I can recall), as you say below so your forthrightness here today gives you a lot of credibility. I think we all know people like Kerry, you know he's mostly on your side but you also know he's probably not going to be with you when the going gets tough, or you have experienced that kind of disappointment from him more than once.

[blm]

149. No problem - just show me where Kerry adamantly denied it.

I only saw that a person in his office downplayed the conversation and did her job poorly. That's why I dislike Backus and prefer Wade and Winer.

But, I never saw where Kerry is adamantly denying the conversation even happened, so maybe I missed something.

[CatWoman]

162. you're right -- the response was delivered via a spokesman

on democracynow

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Speaking of John Kerry, I have some news for you. On Friday, this last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He said he doesn't believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue, because of the sour grapes, you know, question. But he said he believes it was stolen.
RawStory:

"A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vehemently denied that the senator had told a popular liberal author and journalist that he believed the 2004 election was "stolen" in response to queries from RAW STORY.

Miller was shocked to hear of Kerry's denial.

"I call that contemptible," Miller told RAW STORY. "That's completely false.""

who knows?

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2005/11/mark-crispin-miller-john-kerry-said.html

[blm]

163. I was first to say Backus did a pisspoor job and unnecessarily snarky.

But it also stands to reason that people dramatize the retelling of stories, especially when they are being broadcast.

There are good reasons for Miller to dramatize his story to make it more compelling, and good reasons for Kerry to want to downplay the meeting.

I look to the Robert Parry article that addresses the dustup and see quite amazing information in it for anyone truly concerned with machine fraud.

Jonathan Winer may just become the most important player for exposing the entire issue. And we will have Kerry to thank for that somewhere down the line.

[CatWoman]

164. wow!!! talk about mind meld

I was just reading the Consortium News article :D

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html

[blm]

167. Anyone concerned about machine fraud should be thrilled that Winer is

even mentioning it.

It means that the guy who helped uncover IranContra and BCCI is INVOLVED on the issue. He specializes in information security.

You can bet that Parry will be involved, too. Winer and Parry share a history of mutual trust.

[melody]

2. I hope so - I don't trust anyone who can't change his/her mind

As for Kerry's conversation with Miller, we only have his word against Miller's. I don't trust Kerry due to his actions after the 2004 election theft, but not for these reasons.

Anyway, I'll take Kerry any second of the day over Baby Bush.

[StClone]

25. Miller is like a Political rocket scientist

He's as sharp on research and detail as the human mind allows. I think Kerry's "Ohio stolen" remark was typical ambiguous political couching but was to the ultra-definitive Mark Crispin Miller a whale of a remark. It shouldn't be that way but that is my explanation.

[karynnj]

108. He is an expert on things like media

Look again at the supposed conversation. MCM says vaguely "you were robbed" Kerry puportedly says "I know" with gestures of frustration.

Brilliant MCM, hvaing written a book on this and knowing Kerry has never said the election is stolen, responds to this amazing scope by saying ........ nothing (crickets). This doesn't pass a red face test to me.

Kerry has a 35 yr reputation for honesty.

[StClone]

134. I am a Kerry supporter

I was very high on his campaign, donated money and time. I attended a rally and got goosebumps as he spoke thinking this guy will be the next President. Miller kind of upset me with his remark that Kerry's run was inept. But maybe mistakes were made.

[mrhopeforwes]

145. Maybe!!??

he said the "knowing what he knows now" remark. HOW CAN YOU FORGIVE THAT? After all, he's the one who griped about Bush not coming back to Congress. So why would he vote that way "again" knowing Bush wouldn't come back to Congress? And why did we run a man who so many veterans despised?

[ProSense]

152. Why don't you leave this

sort of character assassination to the Swift Boat Vets? With language like that, for all I know you could be one of their supporters.

[mrhopeforwes]

157. language like what?...

and, uhm, do you think maybe you could acknowledge my point?

[ProSense]

158. Language like

the language in your post.

[mrhopeforwes]

159. now that's redundant

you're supposed to say, for instance, the word "despised" or whichever word you take issue with. ...again, when do you plan to address my specific points? Arguing like a Republican is not commendable.

[ProSense]

160. I know

concepts are sometimes hard to understand and the truth can sometime hurt. Sorry I didn't do what I was suppose to.

[ProSense]

153. Delete

[ProSense]

154. Delete

[Mutley]

True... but Bush is worse.

www.50bushflipflops.com

And anyway, since when is it a bad thing to change your mind in light of new information?

[CatWoman]

9. I agree

but why would he agree with Miller, then deny it?

[pretzel4gore]

19. maybe to lie to an abstraction (the people) is easier

than confronting an honest man in person?

[TahitiNut]

27. Are you saying "better a flip-flop than a flipped-out flop"??

:evilgrin:

[Mutley]

30. Totally.

:7

[TahitiNut]

32. (Edited - for new and improved retort.)

:evilgrin:

[Mutley]

34. Bait and switch! I'm telling!

x(

:D

[MoonRiver]

98. What difference does it make if * is worse??????????

We all agree 100% about that. But the fact is that Kerry conceded in record time despite obvious, in your face, voter fraud that gave the election to *. Now * is what we have. Kerry would have been infinitely better, but he didn't fight for our votes and the presidency, so
:wtf:?

[Charlie Brown]

103. Okay, let's say the Dems made a huge stink on Nov. 3 about election fraud

file suits in every state and start throwing barriers in the way of all orders of business in the House and Senate.

What happens then? The Republicans smear Dems as obstructionists and sore losers, and people who put politics before their constituents. Moderates grow extremely pissed when their representatives take ideological stands for the sake of their base. Look at all the ire the Dems have accumulated over the filibuster if you don't believe me.

I don't know what some of you expect to accomplish from these feats, apart from losig more seats in Congress and the marginalization of our party.

The most you could hope is that one of these suits reaches the Supreme Court, and with the Fab Five in control (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor), there's zero chance of making a difference there, as well.

We even got Barbara Boxer to endorse a discussion of the election results, and it did absolutely zero good.

You guys can slam Kerry all you want, he did the smart thing by ending the race. It threw the ball back to the opposing team, and they've been fumbling it ever since.

[Peggy Day]

107. I agree, but smart? How many people have since died?

[kansasblue]

115. you only think it's about winning 2004, but it's really about...

correcting the elections in 2006 and 2008. You and Kerry are very short sighted. Thinking only of the now. What most of us care about is action that lead to correcting the election problems. That will never happen unless the losing canidate take the issue, concerned only about whats best for the country. You are worried Kerry would be a 'sore loser', yup he did it right, I don't think of him as a SORE loser.

[Adelante]

191. You are so right

It should have been done between 2000 and 2004; it should have been well advanced between 2004 and 2006; it MUST be done between now and 2008.

Besides being the right person as our nominee, as you point out, kansasblue, Kerry is the right person by nature and training and achievement to bring about election reform. I want him to run as thorough an investigation into 2000 and 2004 as he did on BCCI and Iran-Contra. I want him to force election reform down everybody's throat and not stop until we have fair elections.

Kerry is the absolute right man for this job. Why on earth should he care if he looks like a sore loser? I only hope it's sore enough for him that he realizes he can take charge of this mess and fix it for the good of our democracy.

[KnowerOfLogic]

193. Right; gutless, sell-out dems are 'smart.' The smarter they get, the more

we lose. And when we lose, we have nothing to show for it. At least if dems lose while standing on principle, they have something to build on for the next election. Don't you see that? i know political memories are short, but people do remember when a party continually refuses to stand up for *anything*, even to the point of voting for a war that most of them knew was wrong.

[Charlie Brown]

220. You must really hate the Democrats

If you have such strong feelings against Kerry and the 90% of Dems who have accepted the outcome of '04, there are other parties out there and other message boards on which to post.

[TankLV]

242. Oh, THAT's very helplful.

NOT!

Somebody should take their OWN advise!

I just love the smell of hypocricy, don't you?

[TankLV]

241. But they took your advice, and the repuke STILL

"...smear Dems as obstructionists and sore losers, and people who put politics before their constituents. Moderates grow extremely pissed when their representatives take ideological stands for the sake of their base..."

Exactly what is different now? - I don't see anything different.

You are really a laugh riot!

Did you really READ what you just wrote?

You described todays situation to a tee, and that's with the spineless dems who DIDN'T fight, just as you prefer!

Good god, man - get a clue!

[Charlie Brown]

248. If you are unhappy with the Democratic Party

take your vote elsewhere. No one is forcing you to support "spineless Dems who didn't fight."

[TankLV]

259. You are really a basket case, you know?

Did anybody teach you how to hold a civil argument?

You change the subject, you trash and badmouth others, and you have yet to refute our points.

You really are something!

[mrhopeforwes]

284. who else is there to support?!!

IT'S CALLED BEING HONEST. And if Dems can't take honest criticism they have no business being in politics.

[ProSense]

286. So Bush speaks and you decide

to kick this post to bash the Democrats. What's your business on this board?

[mrhopeforwes]

283. yippy, now they can take us all down with them

it's true that it would have been hairy if he and the rest of the Dems didn't take it lying down, but for crying out loud, after seeing the results of not fighting back in 2000 how can anyone defend letting them just have it again? We'll be lucky to survive til 2006.

[Mutley]

135. Okay.

I was just looking for a reason to post that site. So, :wtf: yourself, because attacking each other is definately the way to win the next election. :thumbsup: :eyes:

[rucky]

4. No he's not.

er....yes he is.

[wakeme2008]

5. Be careful... flame suite on ..

I called Kerry a Flip-Flopper when the MCM matter first came up and got attacked......

You do not want your fur burnt do you :)

[CatWoman]

6. bwahahahahaha

[LittleClarkie]

18. If you call Kerry a flip flopper on ANY ISSUE

when several of us had to deal with those same fucking words all during the campaign, and you are ASKING for a barbeque.

I'm not suggesting that if folks honestly believe that Kerry changes issues, that they are not allowed to say so. Far be it from me.

But could you find another way of expressing it? PLEASE?

Or would y'all like to go borrow the Flipper costumes from that traveling group of Republicans and make a proper party of it. I'm sure they still have their giant flip flop outfits too. They're not in use at the moment. Want those as well? I warn you, they're not flattering to the figure.

But hell, might as well go all the way right?

I don't care if you don't like Kerry. But we can't let the Republicans turn ANY of our Dems into cartoons the way they did with Gore and Kerry.

[pretzel4gore]

41. yah you're right...

instinctively, i go along when an angry DUer starts piling on john (or any of ours) because i want them to STRIDE BOLDLY where no one else dares go....but that's silly. THe pigmedia is a horror, and it's now caught out as busheviks, and it can and will lie outright if Kerry does anything to please us....we're in a minefield, and to get away from bushinc, to get free of them freaks, might be the only wise short term objective there is! i fear kerry etal will help bush rather then risk getting the Great Dull Beast to turn on the ruling class, which includes many of his/their dearest friends...they will free us of bush, but in a nice and polite way, through lawyers and the law lawyers hide behind....i think they are all, both dems and repubs, riding a bucking bronco that, for all the effort to stay on it, is still quite tranquil! they imagine what happens if the great dull beast turn on them, if this is what it's like while it's fairly calm, and they are terrified (?) And they're right to be....

[KnowerOfLogic]

194. If Hitler says the sky is blue, i am not going to disagree, simply because

it was Hitler who said it. If a republican speaks the truth, i am not going to deny it, just because a republican said it. I hope that none of us is so partisan as to do that.

[blm]

196. Except that Kerry never flip flopped as they claim.

He has voted FOR versions of bills with accountability and voted AGAINST similar bills but with no accountability, and the GOP use that to call him a flip flopper - knowing that THEIR targeted audience doesn't understand how congressional voting works.

ALL lawmakers vote for one version of a bill before they vote against the other. Or they vote against a bill before they vote for another version.

The GOP knows their audience is too stupid to know that basic fact, and the media accomodated the duplicity in that storyline.

[mrhopeforwes]

285. maybe it's not, technically, a "flip flop", but "knowing what he knows now

" and still saying he'd vote that way, despite knowing that Bush wouldn't come back to congress like he said he would, well, sorry, but that's trying to be on both sides of two mutually exclusive positions.

[LittleClarkie]

245. It is in your average Republican's self-interest to oversimplify

So you think that flipper costumes and foam rubber flip flop outfits were appropriate during the last election because the Republicans were correct about our former candidate? Were they merely calling "the sky blue"?

Only if you oversimplify the issues, and don't look deeply enough.

But regardless of what folks think of Kerry's positions on the issues in the past, if Kerry felt he'd been misrepresented by Miller's comments, why was it flip flopping to say so.

If Kerry never truly said the words that Miller attributed to him, and said so, why is that a flip flop?

CatWoman could have come up with a better, more fair example.

Meanwhile, I just love how we will collapse at the feet of someone who's saying what we want to hear. Will we still remember Mr. Miller later? Will we still remember Murtha later? Will threads about them sink like a stone, the way former heroine Barbara Boxer's threads do?

[brainshrub]

7. Possibility: Kerry is telling the truth and MCM is trying to sell books.

I don't believe the headline I wrote, but you have to admit that it is possible that Kerry is telling the truth.

I suggest you read this article, and note the comment that someone left at the bottom:

http://www.brainshrub.com/kerry-deny

[MH1]

79. No fair, you're using logic. n/t

[Ladyhawk]

89. This is a real possibility. I really don't know whom to believe

because I don't know Mark Crispin Miller and Kerry has an already proven track record of being a politician (sometimes less than reliable). My opinion of Kerry is based on observation. Others may hold different opinions and that's fine with me. I would still vote for Kerry over the chimp, but I hope we have a better candidate next time.

[Shadowen]

161. Yes, it's possible.

But knowing what I know about both, I'm more inclined to believe Miller. He has never had a need to exaggerate, embellish, or stretch the truth--so why would he need to lie? Let's face it: it's more a neat tidbit that "John Kerry believes the election was stolen", mere rhetorical weight as opposed to damning evidence, which the book is full of. Miller doesn't need it to prove his point, so why would he use it if it weren't true?

I do not particularly accuse anything except of being a politician. He believes it would be a propaganda coup at this point to admit he thinks the election was stolen, so he's denying it.

[leftchick]

8. he is scared

they all are save a very few. They are scared for their political careers and not for America.

[Charlie Brown]

14. Kerry is pushing for a troop withdraw and national healthcare for kids

If that's being "scared" then I wish more Dems would follow that example.

[LittleClarkie]

33. M'God what a monster. Crucify him!!

And defended Murtha. And called Bush on most of his bullshit so far. And let us not forget he's STILL involved in a lawsuit in Ohio regarding the 2004 election, plus two more regarding suppression.

Yeah, he's just running scared :eyes:

Kerry's not scared to come out. He's a former lawyer and prosecutor. He ain't coming out without evidence he could take to a court of law. And that's just the way it is.

Our former candidate is a stationwagon. He's not going to turn into a Ferrari all of a sudden and go driving off a cliff because he thought there was a bridge there. (m'god, what a sucky analogy)

But he sure is fun when he's angry.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Exactly

And why is that lawsuit next year instead of this year? :shrug: I hope and pray they go in swinging. I remember they were going to pull out but someone (and I wouldn't be surprise if other people) sent Kerry's people lots of proof and evidence and they stayed in. So obviously he does care to stay in the lawsuit. And also remember that the republicans control everything and have the ability to spy and who knows if they blackmail Kerry. :shrug: So if he does want to do anything with this suit next year (in August) he has to becareful. Oh and Teresa talked about it too back in May (that they stole it) and didn't she have her own team? Are they doing anything now?

[LittleClarkie]

118. Is he doing anything now? He appears to be quietly pushing.

Why is it in August? Because as you say Republicans run the show.

The rumor from the Green leader Cobb was that he was pulling out, but Kerry never did. He may have only ever been just thinking about it.

And I think Teresa is a window into what was really going on. They were looking for a whistleblower. They never got that person.

[FreedomAngel82]

176. I guess I still wonder why August and not sometime this year

:shrug: Were they looking for a whistleblower? I never heard that.

[LittleClarkie]

224. Teresa said just before the Jan 6 Congressional deadline

that what they really needed was some sort of concrete proof and/or someone to come forward. It was reported here at the time. I don't remember by who, and whether it was second-hand or if they'd been corresponding with her. But I'm pretty sure Teresa said they were looking for a whistleblower. She may have even used that exact word.

[leftchick]

38. I believe the issue here is honest, reliable, verifiable elections

With no electronic voting machine fraud or electoral shenanigans. That is when certain Democrats run and hide from the truth. It is too scary and "on the fringe" for them. :eyes:

[Charlie Brown]

42. and this justfies Miller violating Kerry's confidentiality?

I love the "two wrongs make a right" crowd.

[leftchick]

43. sheesh

I feel violated by Kerry's SILENCE for 13 fucking months! He KNOWS the election was stolen and he chooses to keep his yap shut about it because he is scared for his political career. I have zero respect left for the man as a presidential candidate and MANY Democrats here and elsewhere feel the same way. If he dares to run again it will be a waste of his time and his millions.

[FreedomAngel82]

57. Read post thirty-three if you haven't already

[leftchick]

69. I have and..

It reads like a Kerry kool-aide drinker's post. There is still no explanation for Kerry's denial of the MCM conversation and the continued silence on the 2004 stolen election.

[kster]

59. I'm mad too,

but at everyone in the government equally for their silence for 13 fucking months, not just Kerry.

[EFerrari]

46. That's simply ridiculous. Public figures don't have private

conversations. Kerry knows it, Mark knows it, and you should know it.

I sincerely hope you're still not waiting for Kerry to save you and your elections from behind the scenes. Because it's not going to happen.

And here is MCM, putting everything right out there in the most thoughtful way possible and the Kerry contingent is miffed?

I'll take clean elections over John Kerry any day of the week. And, he just missed yet another chance to be an effective leader. You all should be upset at that, if anything.

Sheesh.

[Charlie Brown]

58. "Public figures don't have private lives" = "Let's impeach Clinton"

Yes, public figures have private lives, and they should be able to live their lives without people like Ken Starr or MCM exploitng them.

I am more concerned with ending the War in Iraq and helping others who are disadvantaged than election reform right now, and MCM's allegations do nothing but discredit Kerry, who is trying very hard to advance the two former issues.

[EFerrari]

68. You distorted my statement. I said public officials don't

have private conversations. In public! lol

And if you're not focussed on election reform after your guy won the election and was cheated out of his win, well, good luck to both of you.

[nicknameless]

83. True... Not to mention the fact that an affair *is* a private-life issue,

and a national election ISN'T!!!

[femrap]

74. Hey.....! Did you ever think that Miller and Kerry agreed on

how to play this in the press??? Keeps it in the news....maybe sells some books....and maybe some Americans become enlightened about our lack of Democracy. Kerry doesn't take shit from his party or the neocons....and Miller gets to tell the Truth.

[Charlie Brown]

75. That's an interesting theory

but if it's between taking Miller's word or taking Kerry's, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with Kerry.

[EFerrari]

90. Best of both worlds. There's a thought. : )

[mondo joe]

93. Big fat fucking difference between Ken Starr and the press.

Ken Starr had the full force of the federal government and unlimited spending and authority.

That has nothing to do with the press uncovering what they can - which is their responsibility.

[Charlie Brown]

105. Miller is "the press" now?

I thought he was just a flavor of the month author who writes crap books that only people who can't think for themselves actually read.

[EFerrari]

184. Charlie Brown, lol, this is who Prof MCM is:

Mark Crispin Miller

* Industry: Communications / Media
* Occupation: Professor / Author
* Location: New York City : New York : United States

About Me

Author of Boxed in: The Culture of TV, The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, and, Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order.

Most recently, Miller wrote and performed in "A Patriot Act," a chilling indictment of the movement to subvert the US Constitution and replace American democracy with religious values. DVD now available.

[Charlie Brown]

204. and that makes him "the press"

Of course it does.

[EFerrari]

232. By any measure, yes. It does. n/t

[Charlie Brown]

257. Do you consider Limbaugh and Savage to be the press

'cause MCM is basically the equivalent.

[EFerrari]

275. Hmmm, no. Neither Limbaugh nor Savage could get a

professorial chair at any reputable university.

/clarity

[confludemocrat]

138. So when Kerry speaks to a private citizen--automatic confidentiality?

God you Kerry people try hard. Try as you might to spin this episode this once again makes Kerry look bad and it is a foregone conclusion that once again as with Murtha (despite someone above trying to tie Kerry to Murtha impying JFK is supporting him on his plan, as other Kerry supporters have tried to tie Kerry to Cindy Sheehan--which she will have none of) whose plan he wouldn't support in any way, he backs off of supporting an ally making a bold stand and basically undercuts that ally, Miller.

peoples support of Kerry as the negative evidence piles up to a level showing it's delusional to still back him with such--to put politely--fervor, is a mystery.

[karynnj]

186. No, it's you who can't she anything besides black and white

Kerry supports Murtha's right to offer an exit plan without getting smeared. He also listed Murtha's credentials. Kerry, as is his right, does not back Murtha's plan. (News bullitan: Murtha didn't back Kerry's a month ago. Oddly, there were no DU posts that Murtha was dissing Kerry)

Cindy Sheehan did meet with Kerry and put him in her Hall of Fame. She does not agree 100% with him - but she has been more positive than negative. I actually prefer Kerry's rhetoric to Cindy's and even his positions to hers.

The people that many of you support have done and said far less than Kerry - so why is it delusional to support him. (I think he has a chance to win, but I think it will be very tough - because he has absolutely no media support. I support him because I still think he's the most qualified.)

[confludemocrat]

207. But his nonsupport of Murtha's plan in any way shape or form sucks

Yes, Cindy did meet w/ Kerry but she also told an interviewer this:

"I regret supporting John Kerry in 2004. The movement gained nothing from his candidacy."

She in her usual optimistic way said she thought Kerry "might be changing". I don't think she would say the same thing now based on the Murtha thing.

I think it's delusiuonal to support him because he thinks there is a "mission" to be accomplished and has a "plan for success" vis a vis Iraq. That is delusional and anyone who follows that line of thinking concerning an illegal, immoral, corruptly run war must be equally so.

And now this voting issue. near zero risk to Kerry admit he believes there was stealing going on with the 2004, but he is so risk averse that he as in so many other ways falls short.

[ProSense]

209. Kerry has his own (and better) plan n/t

Shouldn't Murtha support Kerry's plan?

[confludemocrat]

212. No. Murtha acknowledges the mess and Kerry sees a "mission"& "success"

That's the big diff. What success are you or is he looking for? What is the mission? He hasn't said so I can't take your take on it with much credulity. And if this bloody immoral disaster he voted for doesn't have a mission or there can ever be a "plan for success" that will be succesful given all the lies by Bush and dodging by Kerry vis a vis the war, then why would you in good conscience support Kerry?

[ProSense]

217. Murtha calls for redeployment

Kerry calls for full withdrawal.

Success: getting the soldiers out safely and at the same time turning Iraq over to the Iraqis.


No matter how often it's repeated, the vote wasn't for war. I support Kerry because I understand that.

[confludemocrat]

235. No, Kerry says "complete the mission", then withdrawal. read up a bit

And of course Murtha has acknowledged the mission is broken (Kerry has not) and others have spoken up to say the military is broken. And everyone has interpreted what Murtha has said as withdrawal anyway (some (incl Hillary) have disingenuoulsy spun it as "immediate withdrawal"), which I am for actually, so the word game you are attempting will not fly. Read Kerry's so-called plan, read Murthas. Murtha thinks this mess is not salvageable. Kerry does. Kerry "complete the mission", "this (withdrawal plan) is a plan for success" closer to Bush ("total victory")than Murtha. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[ProSense]

238. Read it again because you're incorrect

Kerry says nothing about complete the mission. Complete withdrawal is better than redeployment and Bush has no plan to leave Iraq.

[confludemocrat]

243. I must insist, he has said it many times but has rephrased it as I stated

he now calls it "a plan for success" And the "complete the mission" is something he has used in 2004 repeatedly. You really do need to get informed on this. But I'm perceiving you still won't accept it.

[TankLV]

247. OK, so now you're admitting that Miller is correct and Kerry is lying

about the conversation, so now you resort to the "confidentiality" smokescreen.

Not a very good move to support your arguments so far.

So others are wrong to criticize "Saint Kerry" when he screws up, and evidentally "saint Kerry" can do no wrong, even when he does, because it's now the other guy's fault for informing the rest of us of his lie?

Truly amazing.

[Charlie Brown]

256. Apparently people who criticize "Saint Miller" are equally pelted n/t

[TankLV]

260. No, just people with faulty debating skills like you.

We really are in your corner.

You need to make a better argument.

You haven't.

[TankLV]

244. You do have a strong point with that statement.

No argument there.

But please use logic in your arguments.

When you don't, it cheapens the discussion.

We really are in your corner.

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. Ominous the dems ignore vapor-voting!

Why haven't any of the leadership addressed the fact that "our most important civic duty" is being handled by secret proprietary corporate machines with zero transparency?!

[Charlie Brown]

11. You do realize Miller was having a PRIVATE CONVERSATION with Kerry

Miller ran to the press when he heard what he wanted to so that he could promote his books.

Kerry is pushing for a troop withdraw from Iraq and a healthcare plan for children right now. He is doing more to make America a better place than Miller, and the latter's allegations do not help either of these endeavors.

Kerry denied his conversation b/c he was stabbed in the back by a publicity-seeking author.

[CatWoman]

12. I've gone thru more contortions than the Cirque Soleil troupe defending

Kerry -- especially to my brother who felt Kerry threw us to the wind after Election 2004.

I can't defend him here -- private conversation or not.

[shance]

20. LOL!*** Catwoman you rock.

Careful with those contortions ya hear?

;)

[FreedomAngel82]

60. And people trust someone they know nothing about?

Who here has ever heard of Miller until recently? How do you know he is trustworthy? How do you know he isn't a fraud himself? Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word about anything right away. Remember Bev Harris people?

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. I've known Of Miller for years. His book "The Bush Dyslexicon"

is excellent. He's NOT a fraud. He's been anti-Bush for a long, long time. He's an author and a Professor at NYU. He's the real deal.

Here's a link. You can read about him. There's a link on the page to his Blogspot too.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-26,RNWE:en&q=Mark+Crispin+Miller+author+Bush%27s+Dyslexicon

[confludemocrat]

139. So trashing a fighter like Miller is gonna help Kerry? How?

At long last have you Kerry people no decency?

[FreedomAngel82]

170. LOL Oh brother

So now questioning someone's authenticity means trashing? Give me a freakin break. I've never heard of the person before and if I have no reason to trust someone than what do you think I'm going to do? Jump on the band wagon because other people seem to trust the person? I don't think so! I'm no fool. Remember Bev Harris? Oh and just because someone seems to have been around for a long time and writes anti-Bush books still doesn't mean a thing to me. Ralph Nader anybody?

[confludemocrat]

197. The ingredients are there:

Double standard city:
I guess I got the rules all wrong: only when questioning Kerry's authenticity is it trashing. So, you know of Bev Harris but not Miller, and yet you seem to know him well enough to cast aspersions about his truthfulness and trustworthiness. Well then, base skepticism on some background info.

Snide, sarcastic jibes re Nader or some other real leader who is not a rich and elite headliner like Kerry.

[CatWoman]

199. Oh, just ignore him/her

sometimes logic is a dangerous tool.

[karynnj]

187. Miller created the controversy

Get real. His specialty is propaganda and media. He's not naive. Yet, per his version of the conversation he says in a very informal way "you were robbed". He reports Kerry says "I know".

At this point he knows he has a bombshell. He can do one of two things:

- Don't question it and run for the press, lest it turn to dust

Or

- The responsible approach - To say to Kerry, are you saying the election was stolen? This would get a direct answer from Kerry either verifying the earlier statement or Kerry could say anything - from thinking the BL tape lost it, the cable media dominance etc

[confludemocrat]

210. So he is a propagandist and Kerry is what?

That's right--a politician who wants a second chance to be Prez but is showing none of the gumption that it would take to be forthright and stand up and fight it out and w/ a record of backing off a real fight vs a man who could easily just go back to being a comfortable professor but is one of us: incensed enough to take this issue on, coming not from blue-blood skull and bones aristocracy but from less than that and taking far greater risks for his station in life proportionally than Kerry has lately.

What part of Kerrys candid reply do you not understand?

[mrhopeforwes]

287. because it might finally get Kerry to move to France and leave us alone!

he's useless and clueless and never should have run. a 5 year old could understand that it makes no sense to run for Pres. during war when so many vets hate your guts.

[LittleClarkie]

13. I believe both

Kerry does not deny they had a conversation.

But turning "You wuz robbed" "I know" into "John Kerry now says he knows the election was stolen" probably wasn't one of the swiftest things Miller ever did.

Did they have a conversation about the election.

Yes.

Did Kerry say those exact words.

No.

Does he want Miller going around trying to drag him out into the forefront just because that's where Miller thinks he should be?

Probably not.

Was that Miller's decision to make?

Not in my book.

If Miller wants to interpret his conversation between himself and Kerry one way, and Kerry chooses to interpret their conversation another way, I think the actual words spoken leave room for that.

Miller needs to leave Kerry out of it for now, realize that Kerry is indeed doing something, as Kerry himself said he was, but that Kerry does not choose to stand front and center on the issue, and it is not Miller's place to drag him out there.

I choose to believe that Miller is just trying to fight for clean elections. However, I would suggest not fighting that battle by poking Kerry with a stick as if he thinks that's what's needed to make the man go. He will do what he's going to do. Some of us think the last place he needs to be is front and center.

And I'd like to leave you with one last question:

Where did you get the exact words "flip flopper"?

From the Republicans.

And I suppose Al Gore invented the internet as well.

Could you do me a favor and at least find DIFFERENT words to say the same thing. Because I spent most of last year dealing with Republicans saying that about Kerry, and I think I will snap if I have to deal with the same crap from my own side.

[CatWoman]

16. Calm down, Clarkie

yes, flip flopper is a Republican term.

They even used it to attack Clinton when he ran against Poppy.

But that doesn't make it the wrong term to use -- not for me in this case.

And no, Al Gore didn't invent the internet.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I still think you are incorrect on both counts

You are getting in the middle of a "he said, he said" dispute in which both parties are likely at least partly correct.

And the term flip flop still fucking sucks.

Sorry. Either you want me calm. Or you want to use those exact words. You can't have both.

[CatWoman]

71. well, if it fucking sucks, it fucking sucks

but I'm not changing my thread title.

Fucking ok?

We just agree to disagree.

Calm yet?

[LittleClarkie]

117. Nah. The title makes me twitch. But that is my malfunction.

No calm. However we can agree to disagree indeed. Eh, yeah, what else do we have. What am I gonna do, forbid you?

[TankLV]

251. We got your back CatWoman.

Some people don't see the illogic of their failing argument when they have to resort to other smokescreens that nullilfy their argument and try to stear the argument in a nonsensical fallacy.

First it was "Kerry did not say that" and now it's "Miller shouldn't have divulged what Kerry definitely said".

Such repuke logic is baffling to me.

[ProSense]

254. What logic?

We don't know if Kerry said it. Taking Miller's word for it is Repukish.

Some people like to blow smoke to cover the fact that they are trying to appear rational.

[TankLV]

261. We know. We can tell.

[ProSense]

266. Shouldn't you

have a badge?

[TankLV]

270. Like I said, we can tell.

[ProSense]

271. We?

How many people are you independent thinker?

[TankLV]

276. Try the rest of those reading this thread for starters.

Thanks for playing.

[ProSense]

279. Sorry

I read all of the posts and many are in support of Kerry. Thanks for speaking for the rest.

[WildClarySage]

22. Correction- Internets.

:D

[LittleClarkie]

35. Hmm. You are correct. Perhaps Al did invent one of them

for all we know.

It's hard werk.

:D

[bananas]

37. Exactly what does Miller claim Kerry said?

I haven't followed this at all.
What exactly does Miller claim Kerry said?
Does Miller claim those are Kerry's exact words?
Is it something like LittleClarkie said,
where Miller said "You wuz robbed" and Kerry replied "I know"?

[CatWoman]

39. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5459120

[LittleClarkie]

44. Here you go, horse's mouth and all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=399790

My exchange with Kerry
Kerry's statement was not planned. He did not expect to see me. His sister, Peggy Kerry, purposely invited me to that fundraiser so that I could hand the senator a copy of my book. (She too understands the urgency of getting the top Democrats to push the issue of electoral reform.)

So I spoke briefly with him just as he arrived, and handed him the book, saying, "You were robbed, Senator." He said, "I know!" with a clear gesture of extreme frustration, and then said that he can't get any of his colleagues on the Hill to face the issue. Said that he had lately had an argument about it with Chris Dodd, who didn't want to hear about it. Kerry tried to tell him about all the problems with the electronic touch-screen machines, but Dodd refused to listen, saying that he had looked into it, and that "there's nothing there." (In bringing the subject up with Dodd, Kerry was not influenced by the GAO report, which he didn't even know about until I mentioned it to him. Indeed, he seemed mightily impressed that the GAO had come out with a strong
report.)

I urged him to spearhead a major senatorial investigation into what went down last year, in the spirit of his best work in that chamber, when he led inquiries into Iran/contra and BCCI. He said that, given his position, he doubts that he can be the one to go out front about the issue, because of the "sour grapes" factor. I appreciate his dilemma, but still think that he must embrace the issue of electoral reform, for the country's sake. (I also think that it would be the only way in which he might redeem himself for his deplorable concession just a year ago.)

Believe me, I understand, and share, your feelings of impatience at the senator's long silence (which, again, he certainly would not have broken if I hadn't happened to bump into him). But if he'll champion the issue of electoral reform, we stand to gain much more than we can get from merely cursing him for his timidity. I therefore would advise you all to shower him with strong encouragement ASAP.

[bananas]

70. Thanks - now what were Kerry's exact words when he denied it?

So far all I can find is a news article with statements by "spokesperson Jenny Backus" intermingled with statements by Miller. There are no specifics in what Jenny Backus says - it's just a general denial, claiming that Miller is misrepresenting what Kerry said.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_Kerry_rebuffs_claim_he_said_1104.html

[LittleClarkie]

116. That might be all we have

In fact, I just looked at your link. Those are fairly direct quotes from Ms. Backus. That's all she said. We have nothing more. I can look for a link to an article that was posted that stated that close friends of Kerry have said that he has confided privately that he suspects, but that's all. He is not the kind of dude to come out on a mere suspicion, however.

By Miller's own admission, Kerry is taking certain steps. He is not taking the step that Miller seems to want most, however.

I commend you for insisting upon exact quotes and complete info. I'm sorry that this seems to be all we have at the moment.

But again, I will look for that one more article that quotes good sources close to Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

127. Okay, this is the best I could find for Kerry's side

of the issue:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn’t challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point.

“Kerry heard all the disquieting stories” about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. “But he didn’t have the evidence to do more.”

The Massachusetts senator conceded to George W. Bush on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after the election when it became clear that the uncounted votes in the swing state of Ohio were insufficient to erase Bush’s narrow lead.

The move infuriated some Democratic activists who felt Kerry should have lived up to his campaign promise that he would make sure every vote was counted. In January 2005, as Bush’s victory was being certified by Congress, Kerry also refused to back a resolution challenging the fairness of the Ohio vote.

More at link.

[bananas]

137. Ok, I basically agree with what you wrote in post #13

Thanks for looking up those links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5461214&mesg_id=5461279
13. I believe both
...
"If Miller wants to interpret his conversation between himself and Kerry one way, and Kerry chooses to interpret their conversation another way, I think the actual words spoken leave room for that."
...

[mzmolly]

28. You got it.

:toast:

[Flubadubya]

47. Kerry is a public figure... a politician, no less.

Thus I disagree your argument here:

Does he want Miller going around trying to drag him out into the forefront just because that's where Miller thinks he should be?

Probably not.

Was that Miller's decision to make?

Not in my book.

Unless Kerry told him specifically that what he was saying was strictly confidential and off the record, Kerry ought to know that anything he says is public domain. He's a big boy to have gotten where he is. He can handle it. Moreover, I think he should be more careful what he says and how he says it if he doesn't want to be quoted on it. Sorry. :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

124. Fine and dandy, but doesn't that assume that Miller is a journalist?

I've seen him referred to as thus, but he appears to be a professor and an author, but no journalist.

Frankly, a journalist would have known better than to play "he said, he said."

Miller may have had every right to report the conversation. But he didn't have a right to restate Kerry's comments in his own light. "You were robbed, Senator" "I know" I repeat should never have been polymorphed into "Kerry now says that he believes the election was stolen."

The conversation was too open to interpretation on both sides. Fair game though it may have been, prudent it was not.

[mtnsnake]

61. The sad thing is that Kerry did nothing to disprove the flip flopper label

The more that people called him that, the more muddled and hazed he became. One has to wonder if John Kerry himself even knows what he stands for.

If anything, he's done as much to earn the title, flip flopper, in the last year as in pre-election times.

Besides, it's different when we call him a flip flopper amongst ourselves. I would never ever give in to using that term if I was conversing with repukes, though.

I've got no problem with anyone on this forum calling him a flip flopper. He is one.

If he wasn't a flip flopper, he'd stand up with his shoulders squared and admit he made a MISTAKE based on Bush's lies. That would be good for starters.

[karynnj]

123. What has he flip flopped on - his positions this year

are incredibly consistent. As to admitting his vote was a mistake he did - over a month ago at Georgetown, he's repeated it in several interviews. (He had even in 2003 and 2004, said that he regretted trusting Bush, because Bush proved not worthy of trust.)

Why do you accept Edwards' tossed off "I was wrong", when he was on the Intelligence committee, was a co-sponsor of the IWR and was for the war months after in started - versus Kerry who spoke against war before it started.

He actually is one of the more consistent politicians I can think of.

[mrhopeforwes]

hey, fellow Clarkie, wanna read my short story about Wes?

and how much of a mistake it was to run Kerry? It's the severest spanking you'll ever see Bush get. I was told by a mother of a soldier in Iraq: "I was honored to have red it." just leave me your email if you want it.

[FlemingsGhost]

15. Face it, many simply will not allow themselves to face it.

They're investing themselves in a way that will not allow them to see the reality of the situation.

Classic denial.

[shance]

29. A profound but disturbing point.

So we have to figure out a way to coax peoples heads out of the sand and make them realize that their heads being buried will only bring about a more frightening and oppressive future for them and their children. Cant figure out how people MISS this, but apparently they are.

We have to help them see how not having their vote counted will affect their lives, their future, and ironically, their safety from the true terrorists***

[FreedomAngel82]

62. So how much do you know about this Miller guy?

Do you know anything at all? How do you know he's telling you the truth? Have you ever heard of him until recently? Have you followed his whole career and know for a fact he's an honest person? Or is he the type of person who will jump on a populaist thing? Was he at the "battle ground" in Ohio such as people like Bob Firtakis who knows first hands account? Tell me more about this Miller person before I go and believe anything he says. Again, remember Bev Harris? I wasn't around than but I have read enough to know the deal. I know she told people whatever they wanted to hear (such as Miller with Kerry now perhaps) and people jumped on the wagon and sent her money and than she turned out to be a total fraud.

[longship]

17. Let's make one thing absolutely clear.

The term "flip-flop" is nothing more than a sleazy poltically rhetorical trick to demonize somebody who has changed their position on a political issue, possibly based on new information.

People who would label *anybody* as a flip-flopper have not themselves thought out the issues involved.

However, do not misconstrue this rant as any way supporting John Kerry's recent recantation of his conversation with Crispin-Miller. I still think that Kerry has not shown the intestinal fortitude that I would like to see in my national leaders.

But labelling a position as a "flip-flop" shuts down dialog on very important issues. I hate the term. It's meaningless.

With all due respect to the original poster.

[MADem]

31. Yep, the Monkeyking is a flip flopper!

He was FOR Jim Beam before he was agin' him!

He was FOR nose candy before he was agin' it!

He was FOR DWIs before he was agin' 'em!!

He was FOR going AWOL...uh, but he was never really agin' that, now, was he??

But hey, as long as you have Rover working your spin, that shit never makes it to the fore, does it?

Democrats spend an awful lot of time eating their own, instead of slaying the real dragons in the GOP...IMHO.

[CatWoman]

36. ROFL

:rofl:

He was FOR Jim Beam before he was agin' him!

He was FOR nose candy before he was agin' it!

He was FOR DWIs before he was agin' 'em!!

He was FOR going AWOL...uh, but he was never really agin' that, now, was he??

As for "eating our own", I'm just trying to be realistic.

[Talismom]

23. Me too, I totally agree with all you wrote here. I'm actually more

depressed by the state of the dems. than by what I've always known to be the case with the repukes. It all makes me feel so hopeless sometimes!

[EFerrari]

45. Cheer up, Talismom! The Thuggery is self-destructing. n/t

[Talismom]

49. I don't know. I'd like to agree with you and I will keep trying to support

the dems, but sometimes they just seem like a bunch of corporatists who are a little smarter and shiftier about hiding their real loyalty behind the dem. philosophy they claim to hold dear. When Robert Byrd votes for the bankruptcy bill or Hillary pushes the continuation of the Iraq war or even Russ Feingold backs the appointment of Roberts to the supreme court--nevermind the Liebermans!--I can't help but loose faith in the sincerity of their professed beliefs and feel that the corporations may have really succeeded in taking over a and producing a one party system!

Thanks for putting up with the rant.

[EFerrari]

54. Sure. Let's say, for the sake of argument, the corporations

have been successful to a degree in achieving a one-party system. (I belong to a third party, draw your own conclusion.)

There are events that are beyond their control. And those events are going to bust this wide open and soon. Schmidt's attack on Murtha was the apex. Watch. :hi:

[Talismom]

55. Oh man, I hope you're right! n/t

[EFerrari]

56. I haven't exactly been optimistic for the last five years.

Lol! :)

[Talismom]

64. No, you'd have had to have had yer head pretty far up yer arse! n/t

:toast:

[mzmolly]

24. Well he didn't deny the conversation. He denied saying the election

was stolen, which Miller himself never said regarding said convesation.

It's a matter of semantics.

[Odin2005]

40. "Flip-floping" is part of being a Congressperson.

If you supported a bill at first, but then voted against it because there was an amendment you didn't like, or if you voted for something because data that shows X is needed, then if you change you mind because more research says the first data was found to be incorect, you'll be bashed as a "flip-flopper" because they Rethugs think that changing your opinion because of new information makes you "weak-willed" and "indecisive." :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

173. Which is why legislators do not make good Presidential candidates

[FreedomAngel82]

48. I personally don't know

This is the first I've ever heard of Miller. How do I know he's not a fraud too?

[FreedomAngel82]

50. I also wanted to add

that it takes me a while to trust any reporter or person giving out information. They have to prove themselves to me first. Just someone else saying they believe them isn't good enough for me. I know what happened with Ohio (and Florida) and I do highly believe the election was stolen from Kerry. Why he hasn't done anything? We don't know and we don't know if he isn't for all we know. I have heard that one of his daughters was threatned on BradBlog so maybe that has something to do with it. Remember too that politics is a dangerous game. The only reporters I currently trust are Greg Palast, Bob Firtakis and Keith Olbermann (Jon Stewart doesn't really count of course).

[CatWoman]

53. here's some of his books

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&wauth=Mark+Crispin+Miller&siteID=1JSk6CbYEf0-mIgz9AuGlt6HdEkFJYTOLQ

[FreedomAngel82]

63. That doesn't really mean anything to me

He could write all the anti-truth telling Bush books he wants. I still know nothing about this person to trust them or not. It took me a long time to trust the reporters I trust now. I'm not going to trust some person I've never heard of. Was he in Ohio like Bob Firtakis was and did his own investigative reporting?

[CatWoman]

67. you said you didn't know who he was -- I supplied you with books he wrote

I dind't know I was trying to make it "mean something to you"

[spooky3]

81. Here's a link to his NYU faculty profile:

http://education.nyu.edu/education/steinhardt/db/faculty/1216/Dept_design/0

[FreedomAngel82]

171. You want me to trust this person and jump on the bandwagon?

So prove to me he's trust worthy. Just writing some anti-Bush books doesn't mean shit.

[CatWoman]

174. I wasn't aware I was asking this of you either

You want me to trust this person and jump on the bandwagon?

appears you think too much of yourself.

i don't know you from the Kleeber elf.

you asked who he was, and i supplied information.

that's the limit of my responsiblity, IMHO.

What you do with the information is your business.

[robbedvoter]

51. "because of the sour grapes factor". Not a flip flopper, just putting John

ahead of democracy, right to vote, catastrophic consequence of more BFEE control.

[ProSense]

65. All this means is that Miller believes Kerry won the election

I'm still waiting for Miller's irrefutable evidence that he can bring to C-SPAN and the media that proves this.

[FreedomAngel82]

172. Yes

If Miller is claiming to have evidence bring it forth or put up! Prove it. Why else do you think John and Teresa aren't doing anything?

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. Politics is more about craft than forthrightness, even among

the best politicians and statesmen. Why do you think Christ warned even his apostles that they were to be as wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves? Serpents are not known for their directness, but for their deviousness. "Serpentine! Serpentine!" P. Falk of this parish.

Has Harry Reid yet denounced the elections as a criminal travesty? It was irresponsible of Miller to betray Kerry like that, and then blame him for his denial. Utterly irresponsible. The Democratic leaders must always choose the right time and place to lower the boom on the neocons, because the strong-arming and crookedness of this Government, means that, effectively, they must fight like guerrilla fighters, irregulars.

People on the fringes of the Opposition can afford to be firebrands, just speaking the truth at all times, as we try to here. Not so people with realistic prospects of leading the next Government. When they lower the boom, they need to be convinced it will stay lowered, for all our sakes. Things have been going very promisingly, lately, hasn't it?

One section of people whose frustration and impatience I can at least understand, are people who are surviving by their finger-tips right now.

[ProSense]

72. Mark Crispin Miller's book reviewed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5461879

[confludemocrat]

246. so posted elsewhere in this thread is corroborating evidence of Miller's

interpretation from another source.

[ProSense]

252. No!

This is a thread I started, not a post in this thread. It's a book review.

[lateo]

73. I wish I could say I disagree with you.

I was a Deaner in 2004 but when it came down to the brass tacks I threw my support behind Kerry. What a disappointment that was. But. Knowing what I know now...I don't think there is a Democrat out there with the cojones to take on this administration. And this is a big, big, big problem. Because we need more than just one Democrat to take these guys on and win...we need a united Democratic front. And not the one that the DLC is selling to us we need one that tells the Republicans to FUCK OFF and then makes no bones about it.

[bvar22]

76. I was "FOR" John Kerry for President.....

....before I was "AGAINST" John Kerry for President.
:hippie:

[CatWoman]

80. pretty much sums it up

:hi:

[blm]

202. Yeah, and DU was AGAINST the RNC mediaspin before they were FOR it.

.

[TankLV]

255. I was against JK for president before I was for JK for president.

I am now against him for president again.

It's my choice. I've used my own measurements. It's a free country.
I am allowed to do that.

To the Kerry Worshippers, you'd better do a lot more than berate us for not concurring in your devotion to saint kerry to get us to support your man - so far, the berrating is failing handsomely. In fact, it makes the rest of us run in the opposite direction - ABK - Anybody But Kerry.

For me, it was "the unity of the Democratic Party to defeat bunkerboy - ABB - Anybody But Bunkerboy". Kerry would have made an infinetly better President that that criminal we have STILL in OUR White House.

But we could have done better, but we didn't. It's all in the past. Time to move on.

Try something new.

Let's not refight old battles.

[MH1]

77. Maybe because it didn't happen.

If I have to pick, I'll believe John Kerry.

The best that MCM comes off is that he reported something that was said off the record, and he didn't have permission to repeat, and didn't bother to clarify before going public with an explosive statement allegedly made by Kerry.

At worst, MCM flat out lied.

The truth is somewhere between those two positions.

Flame away, but your flames will not change the facts.

[CatWoman]

82. why would I want to "flame away"????

you have an opinion just like I do.

I'm supposed to be a dick about it? :shrug:

[MH1]

84. No but this opinion of mine has drawn plenty of flames before.

Please note that I would not even post this opinion - which could be seen as a "trashing" of MCM - if someone wasn't trashing Kerry on zero evidence.

And fwiw, I do think you are "being a dick about" Miller's allegation, when you repeat republican talking points to trash Kerry on some hearsay. You have - NO - ZERO - NONE - evidence for deciding to believe Miller instead of Kerry.

So why wouldn't I expect you to "be a dick about" me expressing a counter opinion?

:shrug:

[CatWoman]

86. I hear you knocking, but you can't come in

perhaps I can accomodate you in "dicknitude" another day.

I watched Miller this morning, and am commenting on what was said in the interview.

Again -- MY opinion -- I believe Miller.

At least he is trying to draw attention to the lack of free elections in this country.

Have a good day.

[blm]

78. John Kerry didn't deny the conversation - Backus downplayed it and did so

poorly.

But human nature tells me that Miller overdramatized the story to make it more compelling for broadcast, while Backus played it down too snarky to be sympathetic.

I'm glad Kerry's office downplayed it as it would likely hurt any investigation into machine fraud if Miller is sharing more than he should have.

Why aren't people more thrilled with Robert Parry's article about the mIller dustup where he lets us know that Jonathan Winer is talking about machine fraud? Shouldn't THAT be the really big story in all this?

Why turn it into Miller v Kerry when it's actually overdramatized story v downplaying the story?

[Dr Fate]

87. I believe Kerry would make a better President than a candidate.

The trick is- will the public be ready for a decent or even great PRESIDENT in 2008 as opposed to great candidate?

[CatWoman]

91. Miller talked about this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/23/voting.violations.ap/

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- The Justice Department on Tuesday sued Missouri for alleged voting law violations, claiming that people who have moved or died may still be eligible to vote due to inaccurate and inflated registration rolls.

The lawsuit contends the state is violating a federal law that requires it to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters. The state has wrongly delegated that duty to 116 local election jurisdictions, which are putting forth a shoddy and inconsistent effort, the lawsuit claims.

Some have left the names of dead people on the voter rolls, the Justice Department said. Others have failed to do meaningful reviews of voters rolls for people who have moved. Still others have taken voters off the rolls prematurely, the lawsuit says.

The Associated Press reported in October 2004 that voter registration rolls in numerous Missouri counties exceeded the number of voting-age residents -- a fact cited in the Justice Department lawsuit.

[in_cog_ni_to]

94. I believe Miller. Kerry is a politician.

He's covering his ass in front of the Senators who don't want to be bothered by evoting issues. He's afraid he'll look like a fool in their eyes and won't get him the nomination again. I don't believe for a minute that Miller let this little tidbit of info out WITHOUT Kerry's permission. Someone up thread said it could be their way of getting exposure for the issue (Kerry AND Miller) Kerry saves face, Miller sells more books...that may be true, it works for me. JMCPO

[WildEyedLiberal]

110. Miller's a journalist with horrible standards who's selling a product

That's more credible how?

[ananda]

95. We can do better than Kerry next time..

Really.

There are other choices.

I like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Gore. I know Gore won't run but I still like him.

I could tolerate Wesley Clark and John Edwards.

Forget Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.

We need real Dems to run, with spines.

Sue

[Charlie Brown]

97. How are Edwards and Clark preferable to Kerry?

Both supported the War and continued supporting it right up to the '04 election. I believe Clark still says he believes the War was justifed.

Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and said he supported "free trade" zones like NAFTA consistently.

I agree that Kerry and Hillary leave much to be desired, but you can find similar failings in virtually anyone.

[incapsulated]

133. Clark said no such fucking thing

What is this horseshit?

He never believed it was justified and said so all through his campaign and still says it any time he is interviewed on the subject, any time he writes on the subject, any time he is asked about the subject.

:wtf:

[mrhopeforwes]

148. hey, fellow Clarkie, wanna read a really funny story about Wes?

the funny parts are really about Bush and Kerry. I was told by a mother of a soldier in Iraq: "I was honored to have read it." leave me your email address and I'll forward it.

[FreedomAngel82]

175. Don't turn this into a Clark thread

This is about Miller and Kerry's conversation and what we *think* happened.

[incapsulated]

185. I don't want it to

For the record, I think that this whole issue about who said what has been blown out of all proportion.

If Kerry was going to make a big statement about the election, he would have done it in public.

It was, in legalese, "excited utterance", heh.

What people make of it, is what they make of it.

[CarolNYC]

219. Geez, mrhope...

You really don't have to post this same thing over and over again in every thread you can find....I AM a fellow Clarkie and it's starting to drive me nuts. I can't imagine how annoying it must be for others, especially those who support and respect Senator Kerry. With all due respect, I'm asking you to please stop.

OK??

Thanks! :hi:

Oh, and BTW, I've read your story.

[Charlie Brown]

169. Here is Wes's statement to the Armed Services Committee in Sept. 2002

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

"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear."


Here is Wes trying to backtrack from these words two years later:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/elec04.prez.clark.iraq.ap/


I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[incapsulated]

182. "If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail"

Did they? No. Bush wouldn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs.

So, Clark's "last resort" scenario never came to fruition. Which is why he never believed the invasion was justified.

I have read this many times. What he stresses, over and over, is that there is plenty of time to deal with Saddam, that our focus should be on al-Qaeda and that we need to bring all the forces of UN, the international community and diplomacy in the region to bear and that the use military force should be a last resort.

He isn't "backtracking" on anything in the CNN link, since he isn't referring to his committee testimony at all. He is referring to a comment he made in 2002 about the NYT report that the CIA had evidence that Iraq was talking to al-Qaeda members. To which he responded that, in essence, he wasn't surprised if Saddam put feelers out to them. He never said it had anything to do with 9/11 or was justification for the invasion. At all.

[BootinUp]

189. I don't see any inconsistency. n/t

[LSK]

213. i read that whole testimony and you are taking it out of context

[Charlie Brown]

216. Not really. Wes supported war in '02

Do you disagree with Wes?

[LSK]

218. wrong

"I would like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations cannot act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration. Such congressional resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts underway.

The President and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or the development of a more intrusive inspection regime such as Richard Perle has mentioned, if necessary, backed by force. It may involve cracking down on the eroding sanctions regime and countries like Syria who are helping Iraq illegally export oil, and enabling Saddam Hussein to divert resources to his own purposes.

We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views and not be too quick to rush to try to impose them, even if we have the power to do so.

I agree that there is a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail. But, I think we can deal with this problem as we move along. And, I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support, and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein.

If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest coalition, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in the North Atlantic Council, if we are going to have to bring forces to bear.

We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post-conflict Iraq are prepared and readied. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance in preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless there is information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. And, I want to underscore that the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive—and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that is longstanding, it has been a decade in the making and needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

[LSK]

221. more - Clark predicted the future

" But, there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable. It could be difficult and costly. And, what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

[Charlie Brown]

222. Wow, he's freakin' Nostrodamus n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

249. So you now admit that you were wrong

in your initial statement? Always glad to see someone with an open mind who can alter their opinion based on new evidence.

[Charlie Brown]

250. Nope. Clark supported the use of force in '02-'03

I hear a lot of people trying to rationalize Clark's support for force and placing it in the context of UN support. But force is force.

Do you have a link from 2002 or 2003 where Clark denounces using force against Iraq (like Kucinich and Sharpton did).

[Crunchy Frog]

262. Somebody else provided you with that link.

Almost everybody, myself included, supported force against Iraq AS A LAST RESORT, IF ALL OTHER MEASURES FAILED. Clark took that position and has never denied it. He has also always said that we had not exhausted other measures, and that this invasion was not justified.

Nobody has ever suggested that his position was that of Kucinich and Sharpton. It was very close to that of Dean, nameley that the threat of force shouldn't be ruled out, but it needed to be used as a last resort, rather than a first.

I don't expect there's any convincing you, since you appear to simply make things up in support of whatever you choose to believe. If I wanted to argue with those sorts of people, I'd be off arguing with fundies. Having no desire to bang my head against a brick wall, I'll let you go ahead and continue to make up shit. I think other posters have amply demonstrated, with actual evidence, how wrong your claims are.

My apologies for calling you openminded.

[Charlie Brown]

264. Well, I honestly didn't seek a quarrel

I hope we meet again under less intimidating circumstances.

Have a nice night.

[Crunchy Frog]

267. Just for future reference. The best way to get a quarrel on this board

is to misrepresent the positions of popular Democrats here. It gets further compounded when you continue the misrepresentation after being presented with clear evidence to the contrary.

I honestly have no desire to quarrel with you either, but I don't like to see ANY Democrat being misrepresented. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from on this, and take it in good faith.

Hope you have a nice night too.

[CarolNYC]

225. No, actually, he did not

I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time comprehending Gen Clark's testimony. Senators Wellstone and Kennedy had no such problems as both of those wise men cited the General's testimony when speaking of their opposition to the war and the IWR.

I especially liked this statement from Senator Kennedy on September 27 of 2002:
"We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril."

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

Indeed....

[Charlie Brown]

227. Since you offer no excerpts from Clark in 2002 to disprove his support

I stand by my statement.

[CarolNYC]

230. Well, I guess I can't stop you from standing by an inaccurate statement

if that's what you insist on doing...

But perhaps you need to read his 2002 testimony transcript which can be found here:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

[LSK]

231. are you reading impaired?

[0007]

183. cough cough

But he is really an unrepentant supporter of the Vietnam War effort, which is interesting when you look at his position on the war in Iraq

[mrhopeforwes]

147. where did you get such info on Clark???

he said to Congress months before the invasion that Bush shouldn't force the issue, yet. Then he told the Dems that if they voted for it the provision should mandate Bush come back to Congress. ...how anyone did or still do think Kerry's a good candidate is beyond me, especially after he said the "knowing what he knows now" remark. HOW CAN YOU FORGIVE THAT? After all, he's the one who griped about Bush not coming back to Congress. So why would he vote that way "again" knowing Bush wouldn't come back to Congress? And why did we run a man who so many veterans despised?

[OzarkDem]

111. Gore may run

He's still making noises, I think.

If so, hopefully he'll use new (non-DLC) advisors.

[confludemocrat]

240. I hope he does. He has taken the heat and persisted through it

and he was against the IWR and doesn't have to spin a vote for it. Simple as that. That's not asking too much.

[mrhopeforwes]

146. wanna read a story about what a mistake Kerry was?

It's the severest spanking Bush will ever get. I was told by a mother of a soldier in Iraq: "I was honored to have read it." leave me your email and I'll send it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. He's a typical politician following the polls and the money.

And, willing to exchange whatever principles he may have to feed his ambitions.

[Charlie Brown]

99. and Miller is...? n/t

[CatWoman]

100. he obviously someone who cares about the state of the electoral

process in this country.

[FreedomAngel82]

177. Oh yes

So much he's promoting a book at the same time. :eyes: Where is his proof? Has he shown any sort of proof?

[sallyseven]

104. Your not talking about the John Kerry I have known

for many years and voted for. You don't know what your talking about.I don't know who this miller is but He shouldn't be saying things that he shouldn't. I guess that when I see that the discussion is about Kerry I should not even read it because it is the same stuff over and over. Dean cannot run. Kucinich cannot be elected, Gore will not run. So give it up. Same old tired losers.

[LittleClarkie]

121. I am glad to hear from a Mass. person

I will support whoever gets the nom, even if it's not Kerry. But I agree that the person I see described here is not the person I got to know for the election last year. I see a man who has much more integrity than many folks seem to want to give him credit for.

And though Miller might have good intentions, he ain't a saint. A crucade complex may be creeping in, which means a touch of self-righteousness. It's still "he said, he said" as far as I'm concerned, and a difference in perception as to what their conversation meant.

[jillan]

101. I didn't get to watch it, so please enlighten me

Everything I have ever heard about this, is there was no concrete evidence that there was election fraud.

Other than the inequality in # of voting machines, did Miller provide any concrete evidence today?
If so, what?

I honestly believe that if there was concrete evidence, Kerry and his attorneys would have gone after it.

Other than "this person said this, and that person saw that"
What did MILLER say today that can finally be presented as unquestionable truth in a court of law???

[nolabels]

102. Let's face we are serving the corporations and their selected players

To be quite frank I trusted neither with good reason. To say I had a cop out my vote to someone who might have won and yet was robbed but no one knows for sure says more about the faith in stupidity then anything else.

If you take it, your as bad as the one giving it, in other words.

You can only move forward if learn from your mistakes, otherwise you haven't gotten anywhere. Instead of just trying change the faces of the people in there, how about pushing the invertebrates that have been selected for us onto the direction needed. Five yards on each down can win you the game in football as long as you don't let the opponent gain 10 or 20 on each of theirs

[Laurab]

106. Oh boy, another Kerry-bashing thread!

And this time over the same thing he was getting bashed for a couple of weeks ago. I can't believe how many times I've seen the terms "Kerry and flip-flopper" together, right here on DEMOCRATIC Underground - thank you, Karl Rove, for helping us out on that one.

I like Mark Crispin Miller - I read "Cruel and Unusual" and it scared the shit out of me. I like John Kerry. He is an intelligent, thoughtful, somewhat careful and I believe honest, man. I don't like seeing these he said/she said Kerry bashing threads constantly on DU. And they always get into 2008.

I'm quite sure Mark Crispin Miller has a book to sell. I'm also quite sure that whatever Kerry may or may not have said to him was not something he wanted shared with the public, for whatever reason. I don't think the reason was that he lacks a spine. I think it has more to do with having REAL evidence. If Mr. Miller has REAL evidence, then I hope he takes it to the authorities, and something gets done with it. If John Kerry had REAL evidence - evidence that would hold up in court, there is no doubt in my mind he would be more outspoken.

I don't mind Mr. Miller seeking publicity, for his book, or especially, for election fraud. If what he has will stand up in court, I hope he uses it.

Dragging John Kerry into it, because of a conversation at a party, is not fair. Attacking John Kerry because he doesn't have EVIDENCE is not fair. Kerry did not make a public statement saying "he was robbed". Mark Crispin Miller made that statement public. These he said/he said attacks are ridiculous, and 2008 is a LONG way away.

[CatWoman]

113. I can't agree with your "another Kerry bashing thread" description

as I have not participated in any anti-Kerry threads prior to this one.

I just know that I have defended John Kerry damn near every day since the last election.

And that I am wondering why I did so. He caved. Big time. Didn't waste any time in doing it. At least Gore tried.

In any event, be it Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, whomever -- they all need to get off their asses and address this issue.

NOW.

It's not going away.

[politicasista]

119. This is NOT the time to be eating our own.

I always enjoy reading your posts, but posting "he said, she said" things is not healthy for the Democratic Party, especially those who are still fighting this evil, criminal, and corrupt administration.

I don't care who's wrong or right, but tearing down our own using RW Rovian talking points only plays right into the hands of *, Rove, and the GOP.

I hated the concession too, but just because Kerry isn't talking about voter/election reform, does not mean he is ignoring it. He has spoken about the Voting Rights Act.

I feel it is unfair to single out one Democrat when it's the ENTIRE party that needs a facelift. People need to realize that NO democrat whether they are a presidental candidate or not is perfect. If they don't get it together and stop trying to find someone who will tell them what they want to hear and not what they need to hear, the dems will continue to lose elections period.

It's time to put the blame and anger where it should be. That is Diebold, * and his war criminal administration.

[confludemocrat]

140. This "eating our own" line is used by JFKites just as they eat our own

They will attempt discredit any critique of his many failings and yes, flip-flops, as "eating our own", including trashing true, courageous stalwarts like Miller.
They will spuriously tie Kerry to true courageous people like Cindy Sheehan or Jack Murtha even though his "support" was merely the usual Kerry lipservice.
They will belittle other Democrats like Gore and Kucinich even while repeating the eat our own BS.
Some of them will taunt you about how their man will kick the ass of whomever you support.
New initiative by another Democrat or subject raised by some here, will get the Kerryization of "JFK was the first" to do or say that
They will spin spiin spin what is well known to be the opposite of their spin.
But they will not answer facts. EVER.

[FreedomAngel82]

179. LOL! Oh give me a break

I as a Kerry supporter am also a huge supporter of Gore, Kucinich, Sheehan, Murtha etc. So please give me a break! Not answer facts? Hmm who else isn't answering things? Oh that's right! All the Miller supporters! Prove it.

[confludemocrat]

200. Oh so you're a Cindy Sheehan supporter? says she would never vote for him

again. But I'm glad you support her, despite the apparent contradiction.

[ProSense]

203. Who did Cindy vote for? n/t

[confludemocrat]

208. she voted for him in 2004 but says she regets it. n/t

[TankLV]

258. Actually, I can understand the frustration of Kerry supporters.

Kerry HAS spoken out on this and many other issues - he has written THOUSANDS of words on MANY subjects - I know - I get his newsletters.

Can you blame Kerry when THE WHORE MEDIA are the ones who have issued a blanket SILENCE on any democrat who has something important to say, while at the same time publicizing every fucking FART that coke sorting, cock sucking, AWOL LYING BASTARD spawn of george and barbara and prescott lets loose!!!!

If you people who are trashing Kerry would spend a little time and really LEARN what Kerry has said before criticizing, you would be really surprised. I know I am.

But that also does not abrogate our right to criticize one of our own when they make a grievous mistake as Kerry has apparently done. We have the duty to discipline our own children, but I'll be damned if some stranger will be allowed to do so. Same circumstances here..

And if not here, just where can we do it. This is a forum for DEMOCRATS. Nobody is saying we should or will go out among the repuke criminals and say the same things! We don't and you who seem to worship Kerry should know better than think that from the things you say! Shame on you all!

We criticize because we care and we want to make them better and our country and world a better place and stronger. We do not relish the idea of it. But we ignore it at our parel.

[ProSense]

269. Why do you say we're

frustrated? Kerry is the most popular Democrat on all of DU.

[TankLV]

272. Just your opinion from your observations.

He may have been at one time, but I don't think so as much now.

The frustration of misrepresentation of what Kerry actually says and does compared to what is publicized or generally know to those that aren't informed.

It's frustrating when you KNOW that things about an individual are not true from his day to day actions.

That's the frustration I'm talking about.

It would be a lot easier if everyone was equally informed and the "tree didn't fall when nobody was around in the forest" (analogy).

[KnowerOfLogic]

195. Right! ABB!!! (not) nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. Because conceding the next day is common

Oh wait, no it's not. What proof of election fraud did he ignore?

I'm waiting...... please tell me....

Mark Crispin Miller wrote a book that has been thoroughly denounced as pure conjecture and histrionics backed up with no credible evidence. This thread is more of the same. Please provide PROOF of election fraud - you, MCM, all of you trashing Kerry - or stop posting shit like this.

By proof, I mean something that is fucking solid-gold good in a court of law, not something that raises the eyebrows of lefty bloggers.

[seaglass]

136. I guess you're a flip-flopper then. n/t

[CatWoman]

165. ye gads!! I've been found out!!!!

do these make my ass look big?

[Laurab]

181. But it IS another Kerry-bashing thread

I didn't say started by the same person. A thread with the title "Let's face it -- Kerry really IS a flip-flopper" is nothing but a Kerry-bashing thread, with Rovian talking points thrown in for good measure.

We've already had many bashing threads on the very same topic, the only difference is the RW talking point added to the title of the thread.

They serve no useful purpose that I can see, but we do seem to like to jump on everything he says (or doesn't say) and attack him here, and it's something I really don't understand.

Over and over, it's explained that Kerry had no legal REASON to fight the results - Gore did. People don't want to hear that.

They wanted Kerry to go running around like an idiot saying "I was robbed, I was robbed", with no actual proof. Over a year later, as far as we know, there is still no actual proof that would stand up in a court of law.

Had Kerry fought it would have done NOTHING to help him or his party, and the repukes would have had a field day, but you know, it's silly trying to explain that over and over to people who just don't want to hear it.

EVIDENCE. That's the key.

[TankLV]

263. CatWoman is a right wing talking point. Riiiiiigght.

You then don't know shit about CatWoman.

That was a really ignorant statement. Perhaps the most outrageous I've read here.

Stick around a while longer and read some more CatWoman posts. You hopefully will learn something.

[Laurab]

280. Actually I meant "flip flopper"

was a right wing talking point. And it is.

If that's the most outrageous statement you've read on here, you must not read a LOT of the posts.

"Flip-flopper" IS right out of the RW playbook. I said nothing about the OP BEING a right wing talking point.

[FreedomAngel82]

178. I personally don't like jumping

on the bandwagon of supporting what someone says/does etc. just because other people do. It took me a long time to trust even Seymore Hersh (someone I greatly respect now) and other reporters I respect now such as Maureen Dowd, Bob Firtakis, Keith Olbermann, Molly Ivins to name a few. I'm not going to just blindly trust someone I've never heard of until recently. And as others have mentioned where's this guys proof? All he's talking about is a so-called conversation he had with Kerry. How do I and all of the rest of us know he's even being honest about it? Sorry but I'm not about to set myself up for someone who could be lying to me. Why doesn't he get other crediable people to jump on his bandwagon?

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. Why? Miller's a capitalist selling a product

I bet tons of DUers bought his book because of this bullshit "controversy." More money for Miller. Why are you more likely to believe a man whose journalistic standards are less than professional (NO journalist worth his salt would EVER disclose an off-the-record conversation to begin with), and who has a proven history of distorting and attacking his opponents words: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030714/exchange ?

Miller has gotten several negative reviews for his book from liberal 'zines, all of which assert that "Fooled Again" makes lots of hyperbolic claims, yet fails to back any of them up with evidence. http://www.citypaper.com/arts/review.asp?id=4945

So: WHY is DU so eager to take the words of this man seriously?

[CatWoman]

114. I don't give a flying fuck

at least he is addressing this issue.

Someone fucking needs to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. Why is Kerry a flip-flopper then? MCM's account is VERY dubious

MCM is a proven distorter of facts and it doesn't take a huge leap of intuition to assume that he's PROBABLY lying about this too. If HE'S our advocate, GOD HELP US. He's about as credible as Lyndon LaRouche.

Edit: You SHOULD give a flying fuck about Miller's honesty, because your choice to believe him is the ENTIRE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD. Now that his honesty has been cast into doubt, your thread accusing Kerry of wrongdoing is pretty damn near irrelevant.

[eridani]

132. I have yet to see any Miller factual distortions

Everything in his book is clearly documented.

[StClone]

282. Have you read his work?

The guy is a SUPERIOR researcher and fact checker. A statement as to his dubious veracity tarnishes the viewer's integrity holding such opinion.

[FreedomAngel82]

180. So I wonder...

did you jump on the Bev Harris train too?

[Goldeneye]

112. While we're at it....this will help us fix our elections too:

[WildEyedLiberal]

126. You forgot to mention SKULL N BONEZ!!!

How many ways can we demonize Democrats?

Believing a dishonest career-pusher's hysterical and dubious account of an off-the-record conversation that, had it actually happened, he should never have disclosed due to journalistic principles? CHECK!

Accusing them of being cowardly flip-flopping pink-tutu-wearing wusses? CHECK!

Let's call Karl Rove and ask him for more tips on trashing Dems with really flimsy and dishonest crap, shall we?


( :P I know you weren't being serious Goldeneye, so this is not aimed at you.)

[StClone]

211. I think Goldeneye was poking fun at

The hysterical anti-Kerry Dem-Purist (beyond reason) that seem to inhabit this board in the past year. I know for certain by Goldie's past posts she is a pretty strong Kerry supporter. I grow weary of the anti-Kerry lot, too.

[WildEyedLiberal]

234. Oh, I know - I was just adding my own sarcasm

Goldeneye is cool. I guess I should've added one of these: :sarcasm:

[TankLV]

265. An the REST of DU get's pretty tired of the Kerry worshiping crowd.

Ya know?

[StClone]

281. I didn't say we couldn't do better

But somehow Kerry has been turned into the worst.

[wisteria]

125. Well, I don't believe Miller!

He is out to sell his book the best way he knows how.And he figured out that if he bashes Kerry, he sells books. So, there you go, instant money from the naive and gullible.

[donheld]

128. Is there a politician alive who isn't a flip-flopper?

:shrug:

[Baconfoot]

129. My flipflop on the Santa issue prevented me from throwing the first stone

but I'm sure glad someone did.

O8)

[eridani]

130. Even if Miller is right--

--and the conversation took place off the record, it is legitimate for Kerry to deny it.

That said, though, Kerry damned well ought to be standing up for election transparency.

[upi402]

131. I agree 100%, love though, but not a solid Dem all in all

...and *he* had the most liberal voting record in congress???
Any Dem that voted for NAFTA, GATT, or CAFTA is a DINO.

[ArkDem]

141. Isn't 'honest politician' an oxymoron?

Not sure a phrase can be one B-)

[thebigidea]

142. I think Kerry was just in gladhandling, autopilot mode

"you were robbed, Senator!"

"yeah yeah sure of course lovely to see you..."

"do you like the shrimp and sauerkraut key lime pie, senator?"

"yeah yeah I know great lovely..."

if he wanted to say it "off the record," he just would've said "well, off the record..." - so I don't get why people bash Miller on that front. Its not his fault, he had a brief conversation with last year's presidential candidate - of course he's going to repeat it, and of course Kerry should know that. Kerry probably wasn't paying attention, he's had hundreds of people express similar sentiments to him, to which he can only smile and say yeah yeah yeah next.

Miller probably just read too much into Kerry's all-things-to-all-people cocktail party mode.

[confludemocrat]

151. Thats a good one: the vaunted JFK is as dumb hollow and shallow as Bush?

That takes the cake for a Kerry defense.

[thebigidea]

155. not really a defense, I have no side in this fight

just trying to put myself in their shoes: can you imagine how dreary it must've been for Kerry this past year at social gatherings? You'd be on autopilot too.

There's nothing "dumb" about occasionally getting bored at parties and mouthing empty banalities. Especially if you're a politician who's had to do it for years - you can't expect them to be constantly engaging, witty, and 100% there when being bored beyond belief, being told the same things you've heard thousands of times before at hundreds of different gatherings.

miller wanted a juicy quote to promote his book, Kerry wanted to be polite - the lines got crossed, a silly misunderstanding turns into a pointless online squabble.

[garybeck]

150. which replay did you watch?

are you talking about the original broadcast on Democracy Now? Or something more recent?

as I understand, Kerry did not directly make the denial, it was through a spokesperson.

[CatWoman]

166. agreed, Gary

see my post at the top of this thread.

Miller was on CSpan Saturday morning.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

156. While I'm not happy with Kerry's quick concession and subsequent silence

I had a feeling that since these words didn't come from his mouth directly to the ears of the press they would just be denied. When they were I wasn't surprised.

I believed when Kerry said he would fight for every vote. I bought into the belief that he was "fighting behind the scenes" after his concession. I don't believe that anymore. I now believe that I was played and at the time I was too blinded by my own ideology to see that.

Is Mr. Miller trying to pimp his book? Probably. I agree with the issues he addresses in his book so that's not a problem with me.

In light of what Kerry said during his campaign vs his later actions, I feel he may well have told Mr. Miller what he wanted to hear and later changed his official statement. My rose colored glasses are off and I now know that Kerry will not be the one to rock the boat when it comes to election fraud.

[CatWoman]

168. well said, Lone Star

he let us down.

Right after the election, I had a business trip to attend in the Georgia mountains.

I drove, and listened to AAR all the way there (or as much as possible due to frequency problems).

Marc Maron was deriding Kerry for not fighting, and it pissed me off. I was all about standing by Kerry. I just *knew* he would fight for us.

During breaks at my meeting, I'd race to my car to check the news for updates. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Same now as then.

I didn't have access to a computer, which is

I'm not defending his ass any more.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

192. That's it in a nutshell, he let us down.

He doesn't stand alone in having let us down where election reform is concerned, but it was the greatest disappointment for me when he turned his back on the issue.

I'm not defending him any more either. I'll expend my energy in more productive ways in the future.

[CatWoman]

188. Terr -- I knew this thread would make its way over there

you brain dead cocksuckers.

Get a fucking life.

[KnowerOfLogic]

190. Yep, and many of us were fried for saying so in 2004. nt

[sendero]

198. I believe Miller also..

... and I see this pattern in Kerry's words that - well - flip flop is not exactly how I would describe it. It's more like fence-riding.

Kerry is loathe to take any position that might upset people. He is just too much a politician - he wants to please everyone all the time and that makes being a LEADER impossible.

As for changing his mind - as far as I'm concerned if you cannot change your mind maybe you don't have one. Hell, I used to be a Republican - I changed my mind. Am I a flip-flopper?

[CatWoman]

201. it's not the "mind changing" that I object to

[Charlie Brown]

205. May I ask why you believe MCM?

Your entire post is devoted to Kerry. You do not comment on Miller or why we should take his word for what Kerry said.

The burden is on Miller to prove what he said is true, not John Kerry.

[sendero]

206. In a he-said - he said situation.....

... I believe whoever is the most believable.

So for me that is absolutely not JK.

[ProSense]

214. Still going

and Miller still made his statement to prop up book sales to people who are paying attention to him.

Has this bombshell (based on this thread) revelation on C-SPAN made it to the evening news?

[CatWoman]

223. yeah

thanks for kicking it for me :hi:

[ProSense]

229. Yeah

the other news networks picked?

[LSK]

215. OMG - not another Kerry bashing thread

Why is everyone IGNORING the part about Kerry not want to come out with it because he will be roasted by the MSM and the right wing about being a sore looser?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:
:banghead:

[confludemocrat]

236. How many passes are you going to give him? Anyway, don't trivialize this

The OP is no happier to do this than any heartfelt, to-the-bone liberal/progressive/fighting Dem would be.

And that Kerry "having to take heat" excuse is getting old.

[Generator]

226. Wow

Jeez I'm thinking only Catwoman can get away with this AND I'm thinking that IF Catwoman is going south on Kerry it says something. And check my posts-I was one of the top Kerry gals around here for a long long time. But I still don't think he's a flip flopper. Just not the man of courage that I hoped, believed he would be. A good man but not a great man. Not extraordinary in a time of extraordinary crisis. I think he means well. But meaning well and letting not risking your future are not enough in this time of crisis. I took my name off his mailing list a few months ago. I hate Kerry bashing but I too believed Miller and if we don't fix the elections it's all moot- we can cheer and bash all day long and we are only FOOLING OURSELVES.

I think of Andy Stephenson and I didn't believe what he claimed before the election of 2004. I couldn't handle it. And then I watched it happen. So I can't fool myself anymore, and the slow approach to our future is not enough. Kerry belongs to another time. Not this one. We need someone that can risk all. That's what you have to have in a time of crisis to save your life, not the safe approach.

[CatWoman]

228. I don't mean to bash the man

he's a great man, excellent senator, wonderful father. Deep thinker, intelligent, handsome. Exquisite dresser, married very, very well. I have nothing but respect for Teresa.

But he let me down, goddammit.

It took a while for me to get here. Really it did.

I almost regret getting here.

[LittleClarkie]

233. I can't picture any politician who would "risk all"

I think we're looking to a bunch of station wagons to do the job of a ferrari. Congresscritters, legislators, write and pass bills. And Kerry has gotten some nice work done that way that is often overlooked.

But he is no longer an activist. That said, if you believe Miller, then you should also believe what Miller said about what Kerry was doing, which is quietly trying to get others to help him shine a light on the election issue.

[TankLV]

237. Another bash Kerry thread. This gets really tiring.

And I'm FAR from a kerry supporter.

Must we always tear up our own?

Methinks it's time to move on and plan for the future.

Don't care personally to have Kerry in a leading role in that future, for many reasons, but let us all move on, please.

[LittleClarkie]

239. Sorta bashs approx 75 percent of the Senate as well

Calling 75 percent of the Senate a bunch of flip floppers is a gross oversimplification of what happens when a bill you supported gets an amendment on it you don't support. It make them all sound utterly unprincipled. And I don't think that's fair.

And regardless of how CatWoman feels about Kerry's or any other Senator positions on issues, she could have found a phrase that doesn't conjure up and reinforce Republican talking points.

[TankLV]

268. I wouldn't call Kerry a flipflopper. I've read too many of his letters.

But I would at least call ALL of the democratic senators and congresscritters except for the Black Caucus and a handful of others FENCE SITTERS. They are anything but courageous and princpled, that's for sure.

Are they getting better? Sure - but too slowly, and only after it's "safe" to do so. Is my way better? It's not for me to say. If we get our country back from these evil - yes evil - repukes, then that is all that matters. But I have been around for a long time and remember when democrats usesd to have balls/ovaries. This crop doesn't.

[ProSense]

273. What makes the Black Caucus courageous and principled?

http://www.blackcommentator.com/136/136_cover_black_caucus.html

[LittleClarkie]

274. What makes any Representative courageous and principled?

Most of them are safe as milk, seat-wise.

The House is like the British House of Commons, and the Senate is like the House of Lords. Much shouting in the Commons, much decorum in the Lords.

[TankLV]

277. Are you serious?

I find no finer group of courageous statesmen than the Congressional Black Caucus.

Beginning with their attempt to get ONE OTHER SENATOR to stand against the 2000 selection for starters, not to mention all the other work they have done.

I cannot disagree with a single thing they have done, can you?

You don't agree with that statement?

[ProSense]

278. Yes. Are you?

I disagree with things the individual members do, just as I do with what individual Democrats do.

I did not agree with the stance some took on the Bankruptcy Bill.

As a block I support the efforts of the Black Caucus as I do the Democrats.

[confludemocrat]

253. Kerry critiques get a going "for the throat" by his supporters as response

politicians win and lose support all the time but what is said about Kerry is taken as treasonous somehow and dismissed as a general lack of strength and giving comfort to the enemy Repubs. JK himself seems to peel off or shed supporters of his own volition almost as if he fears having many of us as supporters. It's not that hard, John Kerry to give us something to hang onto. It really isn't. But we are almost past the point of where changing your ways in gonna matter for us.