Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry's pre-primary non-endorsement of Lamont: nuance or nonsense?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:56 PM
Original message
Kerry's pre-primary non-endorsement of Lamont: nuance or nonsense?
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 01:07 PM by welshTerrier2
Kerry chose, before the primary, not to endorse a candidate in Connecticut ... well, that's fine ... here's an article from the Boston Globe on the subject:


source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/06/unlike_some_peers_kerry_not_endorsing_lieberman_in_primary/

Kerry is declining to choose between Lieberman and his Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, said Amy Brundage , a spokesman for Kerry's political operation.

Brundage said the Massachusetts Democrat generally does not get involved in primaries, though Kerry has made exceptions in the past for candidates he favors.


again, no problem ... some criticized Kerry for sometimes making endorsements and sometimes not ... whatever ... he chose not to make an endorsement in CT before the primary ... so be it ...

but now we get Kerry's strong, post-primary endorsement for Lamont ... again, fine ... glad he did it ... but, let's dig a little deeper to see his reason for the endorsement (from an Kerry email):


source: Kerry email

Despite the "warnings" coming from consultants, political pundits and naysayers in Washington, each of these candidates is making the mess in Iraq a central issue in their campaigns for the Senate. They aren't afraid to talk about why the war is wrong and what must be done to change course and start doing what is best for our troops and our country. And they aren't afraid to stand up for a better way that will bring our heroes home and put Iraq in Iraqis' hands.

It's time to reward their courage.

Support Strong Leaders Who Aren't Afraid to Tell the Truth About Iraq

In Connecticut, Ned Lamont has caused a national stir by successfully challenging the Bush position on Iraq that ignores the utter failure of the President's policy and calls for a deeply misplaced reliance on a dangerous course of action. In the Senate, Ned Lamont will go head to head with Don Rumsfeld, and our troops will benefit from Lamont's leadership. He knows that patriotism isn't reserved for those who defend a President's position; patriotism is doing what's right for our troops and our country.


again, perfectly reasonable ... he said Lamont is a strong advocate to end the war in Iraq and deserves our support ...

the problem is, if Kerry ever wanted the support of the anti-war wing of the party, why didn't he fight for the right candidate before the primary??? the choice on this issue that Kerry rightly points out is so critically important was between an "I support the president sellout" and someone whose views Kerry deeply admired who represented a very large, very active group of voters in the party ... if Kerry believed Lamont had the right position on this critical issue, he should have endorsed him before the primary ... his support now is welcomed; his pre-primary decision now looks pretty lame ...

just to be clear, i'd be happy to support Kerry if he ever really chose to represent the anti-war wing of the party ... yet again, on issues like the Lamont endorsement, his one foot on the dock and the other foot on the boat won't let him get there from here ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not necessarily a Kerry supporter, but I think this is fine...
Kerry supports the Democratic nominee. Before the primary, he didn't know who that was. Nuff said. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. That's exactly how I see it
I don't really see the point of this focus on Kerry and his "nuance." Why not focus on those that aren't supporting the Democratic candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. The one I'm confused by is Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman and
now slams him.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/08/15/clinton/index.html

Hoping to pave the way for his wife's presidential run, Bill Clinton has been urging Democrats to look past the way in which Democratic senators voted on the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

In a meeting with Democratic donors in May, Clinton reportedly bristled when somebody asked him why more Democratic senators haven't apologized for voting to authorize George W. Bush to go to war. Democrats should look forward, not back, Clinton said then. The former president sounded a similar theme while campaigning for Joe Lieberman last month: Dismissing the war in Iraq as a "pink elephant," Clinton said that "whether you were for it or against it," the "real issue" now is what to do about the problem Bush has created.

That dog didn't hunt in Connecticut, or at least not well enough to help Clinton's favored candidate fend off a challenge from Ned Lamont. Now Clinton seems to be trotting out a new one. In an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper this morning, Clinton tried to separate himself -- and, by extension, his wife -- from Lieberman by focusing not on how Lieberman views the war today, but rather on Lieberman's motivation for voting to authorize the use of force back in 2002.

Asked about the claim that Lamont's victory represents a purging of moderates from the Democratic Party, Clinton said: "Well, if I were Joe and I were running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too. But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.' And his position was the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters … This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. "robotically parse apart the nuance"
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 01:03 PM by Der Blaue Engel
"OK, now all the Kerry supporters can come pouring out of the Kerry hidey-hole forum and robotically parse apart the nuance and explain why this all makes sense ... maybe they'll even honor us wiwth a few insults along the way ..."

I'm sorry, but who's being insulting here? And what's the purpose of the insult? Engendering honest discussion? I don't think so. What a Rovian tactic. (Oh, no! I just compared you to Rove! I proved your point! I'm a horrible sycophant! Yeah, whatever.) :eyes:

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. OP has been edited ...
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 01:08 PM by welshTerrier2
on edit: tell you what, i removed that whole paragraph ... let's see what happens ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I don't condone insults from anyone
but Kerry supporters (myself included) are very passionate about Kerry, so we often take umbrage when a post starts out by simply insulting him. And it happens so often (and it's not even the '08 primary season yet...can't wait for that), in contexts that really don't have anything to do with Kerry, that it gets pretty tiresome. So I can see why some of us lose our cool from time to time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. If we want to find out who's playing bagpipes in the valley, we have
to go to the valley to find him.

And there he is: Joe Lieberman.

I lay the blame for tensions in CT on Lieberman, fully and wholly and absolutely on Lieberman. Everything else -- including endorsements for or against -- is secondary next to an arrogant old turd who lost the primary and then throws yet ANOTHER Me First temper tantrum to keep the cameras on his sorry mug.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. KerryBots, quick 'oil can.' I'm rusty over here.
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 01:12 PM by TayTay
Yeah, yeah, oil my arms, yeah, oil my arms. Okay, good, I think I can type now.

Ahm, it was a primary. He waited to let the people decide who the nominee of the Democratic Party would be. Neither Lamont or Lieberman is a vet, so, Kerry waited to see what the people decided.

Considering that he has served in the Senate for 18 years with Lieberman, I think he did the right thing. This was a hot race and I am glad that he stayed out of it.

Connecticut has a Dem nominee now. Other Dems should support that nominee. Kerry is doing so.

What is the problem? (Maybe the software on the robotic KerryBot programming needs updating. This point is unclear, demand imput, logical qualifications and less if... then strings. Or not.)

Ahm, Kerry raises money for Ned. See Ned happy. See John happy. John and Ned are friends now. They all want to go back to the big place with the round dome in DC and get about removing troops from the Big Nasty in Iraq together. This is good. Even among Democrats, this should be taken as a good thing.

EDIT: I didn't remove this stuff, cuz I didn't take it seriously to begin with. Okay, I meant the 'See Ned happy' lines, cuz I liked those. Sometimes the best writing is the simple writing.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiffRandell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. LOL!
That is hysterical!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
34. You forgot to mention that Kerry's Iraq withdrawal plan helped Ned in the
debates, as he could lean on the positive aspects that had already been tested. Kerry already debated Lieberman in the senate with the plan when Joe supported the GOP on it.

Connecticut voters did what Americans could not - vote on the Iraq withdrawal plan that the senate rejected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. You hate him
You've said it in the past, particularly in Nov 2004. I don't know why you pretend otherwise. You're getting really tiresome at this point. There is no other real anti-war anti-Bush anti-neocon voice in the Senate, not one as clear and targeted and consistent as Kerry's. If you're still on the dock, then you already missed the boat anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. That's one of the things I dislike about...
...many Dem candidates.

It is SO obvious that they don't have real beliefs. Kerry, Gore et al were fine with being DLC when it looked like DLC had the key to electoral victory - now they're moving away from it. Kerry's speech regarding his vote in favour of the IWP is remarkable for its empty rhetoric and CYA loopholes, and I can remember when he was in foavour of staying the course.

These people are driven by political marketers. If their political advisors say that it's a vote-getter to support genocide or forced vasectomies, I have little doubt that they'll support both.

I prefer a Kucinich or a Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Kerry and Dean had the same position on Iraq
as Dr. Dean himself admitted in Dec of '03 and Jan of '04. There was a lot of smoke beling blown over that field back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Then Dean
has lost a lot of points in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Your trust in your ability to analyze should have lost a lot of points.
Did you not even HEAR about the B-L amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Not at all
Follow the thread. Someone noted that Dean's stance used to be as pro-war as Kerry's, within the general smokescreen of the times. I merely stated that if this is true, Dean would lose points with me.

I'm not a Deaniac nor a Kerry supporter - although I voted for Kerry out of "ABB". I will never vote against my beliefs again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. I'm happy to have an Anti-Corruption, Open Government Democrat to choose
as representative of MY beliefs. That's why I support Kerry, Waxman, Conyers and Kucinich above all other lawmakers. They are the anti-corruption lawmakers I would trust to open the books.

i don't care about YOUR beliefs if you don't care about mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. I care
about your beliefs. I'm genuinely curious because we're in this boat together.

My stance is the following:

- The two areas that most affect our lives are economic and foreign policies, which are in themselves intertwined in this day and age.
- Economic neoliberalism, the extreme application of neoliberal economic policies, is the current ideology of the GOP and the DLC, and is currently involved in eradicating the hard-won gains of the New Deal and trade unionism.
- Neoconservatism is the current ideology of the GOP and the DLC with regards to foreign policy, which is currently involved in the eradication of the hard-won gains of WWII (internationalism, the UN, international law, et al).

Some politicians play excellent lip service to progressive ideals while supporting either or both of the above ideologies. Kerry supported NAFTA (but didn't support CAFTA) and was originally neoliberal. His rhetoric changes with the wind so who is to know what his actual beliefs are?

Of your list of politicos that you support, I share Kucinich and Conyers with you. Conyers I haven't followed enough to know, while I simply dislike and distrust Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Except you distrust the one lawmaker who has done the most to hold power
accountable for its dirty dealings.

It's as sophomoric to claim that Kerry bends with the wind as it is to claim Ayn Rand is a prophet - that's the corpmedia version of Kerry they have been pushing since Nixon and his thugs tried painting him as a phony - or did you not hear of the Nixon tapes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. That's a matter of interpretation
HAS Kerry been the lawmaker that has done the most regarding dirty dealings? FWIW, precious little has been effectively done in this respect, especially with regards to campaign financing and the vast thinktank/pr campaigns that pervert our polity.

"It's as sophomoric to claim that Kerry bends with the wind as it is to claim Ayn Rand is a prophet - that's the corpmedia version of Kerry they have been pushing since Nixon and his thugs tried painting him as a phony - or did you not hear of the Nixon tapes?"

Sophomoric to claim that Kerry bends with the wind - after posting examples of how he does so? It would be more appropriate to say that it takes cognitive dissonance to claim that Kerry has been steadfast in his positions.

He hasn't. And it's logical - he's a professional politician after all. One that happens to believe in neoliberal economics, so he's anathema for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. He doesn't bend for political expediency - he works at making bills better
and will compromise a step one way or another to get there, but that is the politics of progress.

He worked for 10 yrs to help craft Kyoto with other world leaders, balancing the cultural and economic forces of many countries. There was compromise on many levels. If there was no compromise, there would be no Kyoto, at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. BTW, Gore moved away from the DLC for a much bigger reason: they
abandoned him after the vote in 2000 — including his own running mate telling him publicly to give up. I think that's a pretty good reason for moving away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. No it isn't
Gore abandoned the 5th column because it abandoned him? You call that a good reason?

A good reason would be that he realized that they were dead wrong, that they were a danger to the party, the country and the world. But he abandoned them out of spite/unrequited love?

That's about the worst reason I can imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. He abandoned them because they were "dead wrong" as you put it, and
didn't want to fight for the stolen election. If you think that was "unrequited love", there's no reasoning with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I don't see the difference
He abandoned them because they wouldn't support fighting for the election as opposed to because of their misguided and dangerous policies?

That STILL is one of the worst reasons imagineable.

FWIW, I've noted that he has drifted away from the DLC ideology over the years - which I applaud. It remains to be seen if he's done this by conviction or expediency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Horsepoo - YOU want to lord over Kerry, let's see how YOUR moral record
stands up to his. Did you risk YOUR life to save the lives of others?

Did you risk YOUR job and career to investigate and expose government corruption, and against the wishes of the entire DC establishment both GOP and Dem?

Did you ever put YOUR self in the firing line of Bush's MAFIA in any way, shape or form?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. WTF?
"stands up to his. Did you risk YOUR life to save the lives of others?"

I'm not running for office.

"Did you risk YOUR job and career to investigate and expose government corruption, and against the wishes of the entire DC establishment both GOP and Dem?"

I'm not running for office. Nor am I rich.

"Did you ever put YOUR self in the firing line of Bush's MAFIA in any way, shape or form?"

I'm not running for office, but FWIW I've participated in a number of demonstrations. Has Kerry?

YET - I have stood for and MAINTAINED my beliefs. I haven't "flip-flopped" on issues as the elecoral wind blows.

And I don't fall for the ex post facto rationalization regarding voting for war powers. -I- (and many others) knew damned well that Bush was angling for war at any price. If Kerry didn't see it back then his perspicuity is very suspect.

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

So tell me, since when have voters have to play moral matchup with politicians?

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. YOU accused him of no core beliefs, yet NO ONE could have achieved what he
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 02:17 PM by blm
has and effected this nation's actual history as positively as Kerry has if they had no core beliefs.

And I dare you to even try and name ONE LAWMAKER who has taken on greater battles and effected history more positively for this nation than Kerry has.

I think you say whatever sounds cool to you, and don't give a flying rat how false or hollow your claims are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Why not?
"yet NO ONE could have achieved what he has and effected this nation's actual history as positively as Kerry has if they had no core beliefs."

Why in the hell not? I'd wager that the lion's share of our politicians' "core beliefs" are skin-deep, and that they are willing to forgo them at the drop of an electoral hat. Our history is FULL of politicians that have supported then attacked any given stance on some of the most important issues imagineable.

"And I dare you to even try and name ONE LAWMAKER who has taken on greater battles and effected history more positively for this nation than Kerry has."

You're being sarcastic I assume?

"I think you say whatever sounds cool to you, and don't give a flying rat how false or hollow your claims are."

I guess not. Sorry I pricked your hagiographic bubble by calling a spade a spade. Sue me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. In what coloring books do your spades exist? You didn't ANSWER because
you can't form an answer.

Name one lawmaker who has effected this nation's REAL HISTORY more positively and investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has over the last 35 yrs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Just one?
Fulbright
Church
Eugene McCarthy
etc
etc
etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Put up their records of the last 35yrs side by side with Kerry's -
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 02:53 PM by blm
Led efforts to help end Vietnam War.

Helped lead first Earth Day efforts.

Set up first Rape Crisis unit in the country as DA.

Submitted first ever senate legislation to protect gays. (very unpopular)

Uncovered IranContra even though most Dems lined up with Reagan-Bush's contra policies. (unpopular)

Uncovered and exposed the illegal wars in Central America. (unpopular)

Investigated BCCI doggedly for 5yrs against a DC establishment that tried to block him at every turn, including many Dems. (very unpopular)

Helped expose CIA drugsmuggling. (very unpopular)

Advocated for gays to serve openly in the military. (very unpopular)

Submitted Clean Money, Clean Elections bill for public financing of campaigns. (very unpopular)

Wrote book explaining about and warning of the growing terrorism threat in 1997 and included how to track and shut down their funding operations. (unfortunately for this country it was a very unpopular issue at the time)


And the point is that Kerry has doggedly pursued corruption even when it's UNPOPULAR with fellow Democrats and their policies for the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. ???
Kerry has been active. I couldn't ask for less from any politico. And many of the things you post were actually pushed harder and more successfuly by Church.

But he is far from being one of the most dynamic politicians. Not by a longshot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Church pushed IranContra , CIA drugsmuggling, and BCCI?
I know Church helped clean out some of the CIA filth in the 70s, but who worked to counter them when they returned even stronger in 1981?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Church lost reelection
in 1980.

Kerry's investigation on Iran/Contra didn't lead to NEARLY as much as Church's previous work.

Otherwise, try http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Not just IranContra, but BCCI and CIA drugsmuggling and illegal wars in
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 04:03 PM by blm
Central America.

Do you not realize that had BCCI books been opened there would have been no 9-11 and no Bush would have been allowed even near the White House?

Clinton fucked over this country when he chose to keep the books closed. He took the advice of Greenspan over Kerry. Yet Kerry is the one you target - the one who we KNOW will open the books. The one who Gary Webb trusted would open the books and clear his name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Don't be so thin skinned
I don't specifically target Kerry - I target a very large number of politicians from both parties. I certainly target Bubba quite often. Kerry looms large as do all the other potus candidates, which is why I mentioned him in my original response.

I WANT the DNC to be the opposition party. And to be an opposition party it must oppose what the currently ruling party propounds. This includes everything from neoconservatism to neoliberalism to corporate-whoredom, etc. The fact that some of the DNC coincides with the GOP angers me - and the DLC is the grossest offender.

Kerry, Gore, Clinton - all towed the DLC line at one time or another. Since then they have distanced themselves from the DLC but have not clearly eschewed DLC policies with regards to economic policy and (some) foreign policy.

That's my warhorse.

As for actual personalities I am an historian by vocation. It's been a LONG time since our political system has produced any outstanding personalities or minds - and anyways I am an iconoclast by nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Frank Church
Church gained fame during his service in the Senate by the so-called Church Committees, which investigated unconstitutional CIA and FBI intelligence-gathering, laying the groundwork, together with Sam Ervin's Senatorial Committee inquiries, for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.It also investigated CIA drug smuggling activities in the Golden Triangle and secret wars in Third World countries.Additionally, Church is remembered for his voting record as a strong liberal and environmental legislator, and he played a major role in the creation of the nation's system of protected wilderness areas in the 1960s. In 1964, Church was the floor sponsor of the National Wilderness Act. In 1968, he sponsored the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and gained passage of a ten year moratorium on federal plans to transfer water from the Pacific Northwest to California. Working with other members of Congress from northwestern states, Church helped establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area along the Oregon-Idaho border, which protected the gorge from dam building. He was also the primary proponent in the establishment of the Sawtooth Wilderness & National Recreation Area in central Idaho in 1972.

This was all the more remarkable considering that he represented one of the most conservative states in the nation. He was also instrumental in the creation of Idaho's River of No Return Wilderness in 1980, his final year in the Senate. This wilderness was comprised of the old Idaho Primitive Area, the Salmon River Breaks Primitive Area, plus additional lands. At 2.36 million acres (9,550 km²), over 3600 square miles, it is the largest wilderness area in the nation outside of Alaska. It was renamed the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in March 1984, weeks before his death, and is known regionally as "The Frank."

Church was a key figure in American foreign policy during the 1970s. He served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1979 to 1981. Church was one of the first senators to publicly oppose the Vietnam War in the 1960s, although he had supported the conflict earlier. In the late 1970s he was a main Congressional supporter of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which proposed to return the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. The latter position proved to be widely unpopular in Idaho and led to the formation of the "Anybody But Church Committee (ABC)" by conservative activists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church

In 1942, Fulbright was elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he served one term. During this period, he became a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In September 1942, the House adopted the Fulbright Resolution which supported international peace-keeping initiatives and encouraged the United States to participate in what became the United Nations. This brought Fulbright to national attention. In 1944, he was elected to the Senate, where he served five six-year terms.

In 1949 Fulbright became a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From 1959-1974 he served as chairman, the longest-serving chairman of that committee in history.

His Senate career was marked by some notable cases of dissent. In 1954 he was the only senator to vote against an appropriation for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which was chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy in turn, repeatedly called him Senator "Halfbright". In 1961, he also raised serious objections to President John F. Kennedy about the impending Bay of Pigs invasion.

-snip, 'cos Fulbright's racial record was spotted-

His most notable case of dissent was his public condemnation of foreign and domestic policies, including his belief that right-wing radicalism had infected the United States military. This led to his being denounced by two conservative senators: Senator J. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, and Senator Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater, John G. Tower, the Texas conservative senator, and some radical right-wing leaders had announced that they were going to Arkansas to campaign against Fulbright, but Arkansas voters reelected him. A plot to assassinate Fulbright by the Minutemen, an extremist group, was uncovered.

On 30 July 1961, two weeks before the erection of the Berlin Wall, Fulbright said in a television interview, "I don't understand why the East Germans don't just close their border, because I think they have the right to close it". It has been speculated that President Kennedy asked Fulbright to make this statement as a way of signalling to the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that the erection of a wall would be viewed by the United States as an acceptable way of defusing the Berlin Crisis.

In 1963 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright claimed that five million tax-deductible dollars from philanthropic Americans had been sent to Israel and then recycled back to the US for distribution to organisations seeking to influence public opinion in favour of Israel. This statement led to friction with the organized Jewish community in the US.

On August 7, 1964, a unanimous House of Representatives and all but two senators passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which led to the further escalation of the Vietnam War. Fulbright, who voted for the resolution, would later write:

Many Senators who accepted the Gulf of Tonkin resolution without question might well not have done so had they foreseen that it would subsequently be interpreted as a sweeping Congressional endorsement for the conduct of a large-scale war in Asia.

In 1966, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power (ISBN 0812992628) in which he attacked the justification of the Vietnam War, Congress's failure to set limits on it, and the impulses which gave rise to it. Fulbright's scathing critique undermined the elite consensus that U.S. military intervention in Indochina was necessitated by Cold War geopolitics. Some critics of U.S. foreign policy argue that U.S. policy has changed little since Fulbright wrote his book and find his words applicable today.

In his book, Fulbright offered an analysis of American foreign policy:

Throughout our history two strands have coexisted uneasily; a dominant strand of democratic humanism and a lesser but durable strand of intolerant Puritanism. There has been a tendency through the years for reason and moderation to prevail as long as things are going tolerably well or as long as our problems seem clear and finite and manageable. But... when some event or leader of opinion has aroused the people to a state of high emotion, our puritan spirit has tended to break through, leading us to look at the world through the distorting prism of a harsh and angry moralism.

Fulbright also related his opposition to any American tendencies to intervene in the affairs of other nations:

Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations — to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work.

He was also a strong believer in international law:

Law is the essential foundation of stability and order both within societies and in international relations. As a conservative power, the United States has a vital interest in upholding and expanding the reign of law in international relations. Insofar as international law is observed, it provides us with stability and order and with a means of predicting the behavior of those with whom we have reciprocal legal obligations. When we violate the law ourselves, whatever short-term advantage may be gained, we are obviously encouraging others to violate the law; we thus encourage disorder and instability and thereby do incalculable damage to our own long-term interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fulbright

You'll note the Tonkin Gulf precedent that Kerry SHOULD have known, understood and acted upon when confronted with something even worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. So, in the last 35 yrs, WHO has pursued Church's quest for more honest
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 03:28 PM by blm
governance?

I know what Church did - what I think is that you have your decades mixed up. Kerry took up where Church left off, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Do you think this country would be in this boat if MORE Senators had joined Kerry in his work instead of working against him?

Do you think this country would be in this boat today if more CITIZENS had supported Kerry's work and understood its import to evreything happening in the world now, instead of spreading false Nixonite memes against him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Not enough
people in this environment of neoliberal/neoconservative dominance of both parties, of corporatism and corruption.

A few have played the reform card with a wink and a nudge. It's populistic posturing 'cos not a one has moved for real reform.

Do I refuse to acknowledge that Kerry followed in Church's footsteps? No - that's an extrapolation of yours. Your position was that Kerry has been the best politico ever, you challenged me to name anyone "better", and now you take the "tremendista" POV that I am denying Kerry any merit whatsoever.

He HAS merit. Just not enough for me, and I viscerally disagree with his economic stances.

"Do you think this country would be in this boat if MORE Senators had joined Kerry in his work instead of working against him?"

If more Senators had joined, preempted or exceeded Kerry we'd be in better shape, certainly - with regards to foreign policy. With regards to corruption or economic policy, I don't think so.

"Do you think this country would be in this boat today if more CITIZENS had supported Kerry's work and understood its import to evreything happening in the world now, instead of spreading false Nixonite memes against him?"

That's a non sequitor. -I- voted for the guy, although as ABB. I won't do so again because I think that the war is more important than the battle.

MY war is against the institutionalized corruption that has turned government into the tool of corporations. The DLC is every bit as much of the enemy as the GOP to me - and so are all neoliberals. Call me a conservative - wanting a return to the old DNC economic values of FDR, or call me a radical for being a Teddy Roosevelt trust-buster.

But don't ask me to actually believe in a political animal on the basis of a lackluster legislative record - or to believe that said animal is the "best" our country can offer.

If he is, we're screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. What I said was that he has investigated and exposed more government
corruption and taken on more unpopular issues than any other lawmaker of the last 35 yrs, and for that he is lackluster to you.

The fact is you CAN'T name anyone in recent public position who has effected this nation more positively thru his work in office.

If there had been no Kerry in the senate, what would history be writing about Reagan and Bush?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Nice spin!
You support Kucinich, fine, but to mis-characterize Kerry's position is BS!

Those on the left who want to exploit the media/GOP flip-flop message can do so and believe they should be absolved from criticism. It's BS and anyone who listened cannot genuinely say Kerry wavered in his opposition to the war. No matter where the spin comes from, it opportunistic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. How do I mischaracterize?
Seriously. How am I mistaken?

He voted for the IWP. It was clear as water that the potus wanted war - Robin Cook was one of the few politicos that admitted as such and was consequential with that knowledge (pity he was on the wrong side of the Atlantic), so his vote obeyed other interests.

I'm pretty certain that many Dems voted for the IWP because of the McCarthy-like atmosphere of freedom fries and "traitors" and BAF that was rife in the post 9/11 atmosphere. Most politicos probably thought that voting against the IWP would be political suicide.

I prefer my representatives to fall on their sword rather than bow to expediency.

I can give a shit about the media/GOP talkingpoints. And I could care less if I am criticized. Yet how can you say that Kerry's position on the war hasn't wavered?

It seems that I've hit a couple of nerves with my comments. It also seems that some posters attribute more to politicians than they deserve. Zealousness is fine and dandy but don't let it blind you to reality.

FWIW, my support for Kerry took a nosedive during the debates. He had a chance to OBLITERATE Dubya - but he didn't. And I think that he failed because he was too aware of what his political managers were telling him and not aware enough of what he purportedly believed in. That's where he blew it for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
53. I can say it with confidence because it's based on facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. He was never for staying the course
That's just more left wing idiocy from people who couldn't tell the difference between a plan to avoid the chaos we have now and what Bush did instead. Just like they couldn't tell the difference between a vote to force inspections in Iraq and a vote for war, or inspectors finishing the job and Bush's rush to deploy troops. Or the difference between "give him 60 days or invade" and "against the war from the start".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alvarezadams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. That's utterly disingenuous
"That's just more left wing idiocy from people who couldn't tell the difference between a plan to avoid the chaos we have now and what Bush did instead."

What value does "Monday morning quaterbacking" have? Kerry placed much emphasis on the mistakes leading up to Iraq - and called for a utopic international intervention that just wasn't going to happen.

In looking at http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html, what conclusions do I reach? He was a man covering his ass or he was incredibly naive.

"And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Naive in the extreme.

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Was he?

""I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,'' Kerry said, "but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I support him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.'' "

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.''

Against the war? From the debate:

"KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone. "...I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory. "


Where on earth was he going to produce these putative allies? And he wasn't talking about withdrawl - but of resolution and viktoree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
54. Uhm
"give him 60 days and invade" vs. "against the war from the start" is Howard Dean's 'principled' position on the war.

And having the right plan for Iraq, from the gate, is hardly Monday morning quarterbacking. That plan began with a resolution at the UN to put inspectors back in and then support of continued inspections and yes he did criticize Bush's rush to war in January 2003. Why don't you know that?

Further, once Bush invaded, his plan shifted to international cooperation, UN oversight, local rebuilding process, open bidding, and enough stability to begin withdrawing troops in 2005. Again, why don't you know that?

Since he wasn't elected, he obviously wasn't in a position to implement HIS plan and we got stay the course to civil war instead. So again, obviously, he has had to come up with new solutions to meet new challenges. He was the first to lay out a new path back in October of 2005, a complete plan unlike Feingold or Kucinich, and a withdrawal plan well before John Murtha.

You really don't know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Dem Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. memo to Kerry: I don't care
If only John Kerry had displayed this much righteous indignation over iraq during the 2004 Election, he might me sitting in the White House now. (We wouldn't have needed the banana Republic of Ohio if we could have swung a couple of other states.)

Kerry need to accept the fact that he lost and move on! Currently, his support in Iowa is dismal, considering he was the 2004 nominee. The Democratic Party is NOT going to nominate John Kerry again in 2008. He had his shot. I think only John Kerry does not realize this.

Despite this post, I do respect Kerry as a veteran and I think the Swift Boating of Kerry was appalling. (Of course, he could have fought back harder.) I just see kerry's being viewed as some kind of Democratic oracle to be a bit much.

My real respect goes to folks like Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton (yep, Ole Reverend Al) who voiced their beliefs BEFORE the primary. They were the real risk-takers here. When they endorsed Lamont, there was no assurance of victory, but they put their reputations on the line. I can respect anyone who puts their beliefs before political convenience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Ahm, Kerry did move on
and is collecting money to give to Ned Lamont. Cuz nothing says loving like a check. (BTW, did you know that Kerry has raised more money to give to other Dems this election cycle than anyone else? That is called 'moving on' and in a positive direction.)

Sorry you feel all out of sorts about Democrats raising money for other Dems. Too bad. Perhaps there is room for you in the Green Party or among some other political groups. Dems, generally, like it when Big Dems support and raise money for other Dems. It is generally viewed, not as sour grapes, but as a good and positive thing that shows they are serious about taking back Congress and changing the balance of power in the Capital.

But, your mileage may vary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Dem Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #25
56. excuse me...
Let me say that I have donated a GREAT deal of cash to Democrats this election, including Ned Lamont back when he was just a "Who?" candidate.

I'm not knocking kerry for raising money for any Dems. My point is that Kerry is doing this because he wants another grab at the brass ring. It's not going to happen.

So, before you question my Democratic credentials, you might look to see what I'm actually trying to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Why don't you question other Dems that aren't on board?
Instead of dumping on one that said that he would let the CT voters decide. It's not like he woke up and said yesterday that I am going to raise money for Ned. He has been hard working and raising money for good Dem candidates.

It's too bad you still slam him and promote Sharpton and Waters in the same sentence. Both are out raising money to take back Congress too.


Shouldn't you be helping in the fight rather than question someone's motives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. He sneezes, and people say he did it for 2008
It's too easy to look at everything he does through an "I'm running in 2008" filter, and quite distorting. Some of us see a man with more principles than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
55. Don't fall for the bait
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 05:13 PM by politicasista
You support those dems fine, they are my favorites too. However, I think it's wrong to bash a Dem that is out there working hard getting others elected to office. It's even tackier when you bash them to promote other dems.

We can live in hindsight all we want, but the bottom line is they are ALL working to take back Congress, and that should be OUR goal instead of trashing our leaders.


That sounds very productive and will help us in the fall elections for sure, right?


Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Horsepoo, welsh - Those senators who REFUSED TO ENDORSE Lieberman did so
knowing full well it was an affront to Lieberman.

Why you want to turn it into something else is always the question. Your standards for Kerry's behavior never seem to quite match standards set for all other Democrats.

Kerry has been pushing Iraq withdrawal plans since last October, gathering support little by little, and still he is the one who you prefer to target and distort his intentions at every turn.

Kerry could not have ATTEMPTED or accomplished much of the heavy lifting he has done for years if he had the shallowness of character you want people to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
29. BTW, was there a real reason for the flypaper post
or just in a bad mood today? Are you planning something else and wanted to get all the Kerrybots in one place so you could do something else or what?

Why the purposefully divisive post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiffRandell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. It's their daily fix.
Can't go one day without trying to slam a dem!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
51. Exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
38. Well, I am happy he is supporting Lamont.
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 02:57 PM by Mass
BTW, why are you not questionning other dems' motives when they make the same choices as Kerry (Feingold, for example).

Even more amusing. You clearly do not know anything of where Lamont stands or you would know he has basically the same positions Kerry has. So your post is the one which does not make any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
48. Respect for the primary process
Edited on Wed Aug-16-06 04:30 PM by LittleClarkie
That's what I see.

Nuance, nonsense... or how about something positive and honorable? Nah, couldn't be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
58. he's supporting lamont now, and that's what counts to me
I certainly don't look for kerry to lead the movement against the war. It's great when he gives speeches against it, and he's said some great things and made some great points, but he hasn't exactly been on the vanguard of opposition with respect to this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
61. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic
This post is low even by your dreadful standards.

NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ENDORSED LAMONT BEFORE THE PRIMARY.

Here's that bastion of the anti-war left himself, Russ Feingold, on Meet the Press on June 25th:

MR. RUSSERT: Your colleague Joe Lieberman in Connecticut in a tough primary battle. If Senator Lieberman asks you to come to Connecticut to campaign for him, will you?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I have a lot of admiration for Joe. He's a fine guy. He helped me a great deal in campaign finance reform. I think Ned Lamont's positions on the issues are much closer to mine on the critical issues. I think that this is going to be something decided by the people of Connecticut. I'm not going to go up there, but I'll tell you this, Tim. I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.


According to you, Russ must not "really want the support of the anti-war wing of the party" because he "didn't fight for the right candidate before the primary." If Feingold believes Lamont has the right position on the war, he should have endorsed him before the primary. Feingold's pre-primary decision must also "look pretty lame."

Clearly Feingold has "one foot on the dock and the other foot on the boat."

You clearly don't believe in anything other than trashing Kerry and his supporters. Your position on Iraq is inconsistent, constantly contradictory, and wavering, and your rationales change with the wind to best enable you to slam Kerry or whoever the target of your petulant rage is. Your posts are such a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
62. Locking
Flame-Bait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC