Are Bush and the Repubs Afraid of John Kerry?

[second edition]

On the defensive, the Republicans have put together a video which features quotes from such Dem's as Reid, both Clinton's and Edwards talking about the "threat Iraqi WMD posed to US Security". Since Kerry has been very outspoken and taken the lead on this attack against Bush's lies about WMD (read his speech from Georgetown University) and he was prominently mentioned in Bush's first attack speech it makes me wonder why they are all of a sudden omitted him from this video?
It is my contention that they don't want to take Kerry on. People listen and respect him and they know he is speaking the truth. Thoughts anyone!

[Mass]

1. They have seen Kerry's answer yesterday, I think

They should worry about Reid as well. He is not keeping quiet with this type of stunt.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Definietly no

Karl Rove has met his match with Harry Reid.

[MsUnderstood]

2. The focus on the attacking beast

Reid is the one being so boisterous so they are attacking him.

Maybe in the repubs mind by Kerry not winning the presidency, he is already discredited. I mean if you mention John Kerry to a freeper, they will go on about his war record, purple hearts, flip flopping.

But the freeps don't know what to say about reid (yet).

[second edition]

7. Kerry has been as outspoken and on the attackas Reid, if not

more so. However, Reid does have the ability as minority leader to garner more attention.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Exactly

Reid is a strong person on the defense. I still remember earlier this year seeing a conference with Reid where he was talking to some reporters and he told how the republicans put out this whole page document on how to "get" Reid and attack him and he told about it first and I don't think they ever did anything about it.

[NYCGirl]

3. They're much more afraid of Reid and Durbin. NT

Edited for typo.

[second edition]

11. I'll agree about Reid, Freist should be real afraid of Reid.

He seems to out smart Friest all the time. Durbin on the other hand, was already the vitim of a repub campaign that ultimately had Durban apologizing for remarks he made on the Senate floor.

[kevsand]

4. I think you're probably reaching on this one.

They probably just didn't have a good clean, concise quote from Kerry they could use. Or maybe the other quotes were shorter and more dramatic. There are all kinds of factors that go into selections like this, and most of them have to do with the production requirements.

[second edition]

9. maybe your right! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

45. Well, if they had listened to his Senate speech yesterday, they may have

found a couple of good quotations.

How's this for a starter?

"There is no greater breach of the public trust than knowingly misleading the country into war. In a democracy, we simply cannot tolerate the abuse of this trust by the government. To the extent this occurred in the lead up to the war in Iraq, those responsible must be held accountable" - Senator John Kerry 11/14/05

Or how about this?

"The bottom line is that the President and his Administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history." - Senator John Kerry 11/14/05

[Donovan61]

5. They are afraid of everybody

and should be. They know a majority of Americans are on to their game. Nevertheless, they can't help but go into their Karl Rove default mode. In other words, if your actions are indefensible, go on the attack. It's worked for them for 30 years but people are beginning to catch on. Better late than never, I suppose.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi Donovan61!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[blm]

6. I think they don't want media to give Kerry the time because they don't

want the debate. Better for them that the media is already on ignore mode reKerry.

[jenndar]

8. Maybe they're afraid of his supporters?

Bush's attack on Kerry last week backfired. He has to know that by now.

[second edition]

15. I never thought about that. Good point! n/t

[ProSense]

10. I think they don't want the footage

For example, I saw footage of Kerry after Bush's speech. The piece was giving context (a tiny bit) to why Bush is under attack. That's what I think they don't want: those comparisons being drawn and more focus put on all the distortions and lies from the Bush campaign.

[blm]

13. You said it better than I did. It's the video contrast the WH doesn't want

.

[Mass]

16. Also, Friday, just after the speech, all the media were saying how

weak Bush was to have to talk about Kerry in his speech to make his argument.

[ProSense]

18. Yeah the Campaigner in Chief

and still lying.

[second edition]

25. "Campaigner in Chief" I like that- funny and so true. n/t

[second edition]

17. Yeah, that's possibly true to. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

22. I think so too

The more that the public is focused on the democrats "no plans" nonsense the more they won't be paying attention to them.

[Imagevision]

14. Kerry? Bush is more concerned about the show Fitzgerald is planning

[second edition]

21. I thought Fitzgerald was about done his investigation- possibly

some issues with Chaney, but nothing much else.

[Imagevision]

30. Fitzgerald Done? - for the ground work - now it's on with the trial

that undoubtedly is going to reveal a helluva lot more then we now know about this lead up to a war that was manufatured from the oval office via false and manipulated intelligence.

I'll wait to read about it in the upcoming news, repugs will probably try to postpone the Libby trial until after the 06 elections...!

BUt we still have the Delay and Abramhoff's indictments for backup...!

[sandnsea]

20. They don't want a leader to emerge

They want the party to look scattered and weak, the choices of Reid, Clinton & Edwards does that. Reid, Durbin & Kerry would look like a unified Democratic Party, the last thing they want to portray.

You're damned right they are terrified of a unified Democratic Party with a leader who had near unanimous support. They know if Democrats would pull their heads out for 5 seconds, Kerry or Reid could take that position easily.

[second edition]

24. I was wondering why Edwards was included in the video.

I like Edwards- don't get me wrong, but to use him instead of Kerry-when kerry seems so much more powerful,is what got me to thinking about the strategy or idea behind this.

[sandnsea]

26. Scattered Dem Party

No real leadership, primarily I think. Plus, Edwards co-sponsored the IWR. I don't think he gave the kind of focused WMD only speech Kerry gave before the vote. I don't think he ever gave the kind of "do not rush to war" speech either. The Dem Party could really come back with a powerful ad with quotes and a timeline for Kerry. Not so much with these other 3. They don't want their ad to be so easily refuted.

[second edition]

28. Interesting, so Kerry's position and vote was more developed and

carried with it recommendations, or should I say, stipulations for the use of force as a last resort.

[sandnsea]

33. Yes

Here's a good site that goes into his position on Iraq.

http://kerryoniraqwar.com/

[AmericanDream]

31. Because of his op-ed & he's running second in all opinion polls...

Clinton and Edwards are running the best for 08 right now... they are going for whoever seems to have the most followers according to the polls and Reid of course is the minority leader. In the media and the blogosphere (outside of DU and DKOS), it is edwards article that has gained the most attention, not Kerry's speech at georgetown and work in the senate (which is sad).

But I find it interesting that they show a clip of Edwards where he talks about the WMD reasoning... and now of course that has been found to be wrong. So, what's the point of Bushco? Oh yeah, that they distorted intelligence to give everyone the impression that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Plus, I think putting Kerry on it after him being his opponent in 04 would be a little too awkward and desperate.

[Mass]

32. That was the reaction the media had after the speech on Friday

The GOP knew enough not to make the same error twice.

[jenndar]

39. That's a good point.

Reid, Durbin, and Kerry have been really consistent with eachother for a week or so. I think you're absolutely right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. It's not just Kerry they are afraid of.

They are afraid of all of us, anyone in the Democratic Party, anyone in the media, who is stripping bare their curtain of lies. I'll certainly give some credit to Kerry, but I don't think it is fair to single him out for notice to the exclusion of many others. The Republicans are afraid of losing everything, if everyone keeps pulling at this exposed piece of yarn the whole fabric of their lies will unravel and they know it. They are afraid of the American people seeing through them.

[second edition]

29. Well, I to hope it all unravels and exposes all the lies and people

actually do become outraged over how they were manipulated.

[sandnsea]

34. Totally agree with that

Bush Unites America... AGAINST HIM!!!

[MellowOne]

35. Why can't they just admitted they lied so more people won't die

We need to get the troops home. This is down right sick.

[second edition]

36. It is sad isn't it. Games when lives are in danger. n/t

[robbedvoter]

37. yeah...cuz maybe he'll withdraw his concession...quacking in their boots

they are:sarcasm:

[second edition]

38. I wasn't refering to the past election! Why did you post with nothing

really new to add to the question.

[ladjf]

40. Why should they be afraid of Kerry? He has proven to be harmless.

[second edition]

44. I don't obviously share that opinion. I can't imagine where you

would come to that conclusion especially after Bush felt such a need to include him in his speech and he came so close to beating him, Bush thought he lost. Oh, and how about those debates. If I remember correctly, Kerry won all three. Oh, and how about that e-mail list of over 5 million people. Harmless? I don't think so.

[StopThief]

41. YES!!! They are DEFINITELY afraid. . . .

that he will NOT be the nominee. ;-)

[Mass]

42. LOL, you are dillusional. The only thing they are worried is that Hill is

not the nominee.

[second edition]

43. Your comments don't even make sense if you read my post. n/t