My response to someone calling Kerry a "spineless wimp"

[saracat]

"Spineless wimps" are people who continue to blame dedicated
candidates , who even put their own houses up for collateral, long after a stolen election has taken place. I suppose there are those who are so willing to prove that their perception of the presidential campaign is so superior that they themselves could run and do a better job.Yet none of these steps up to the plate! Why is that? And if the evidence of fraud was sooo easy to obtain in order to prolong an election fight, why hasn't someone produced it yet? Could it be they are "spineless wimps", too afraid to run for office themselves and both too afraid ,and too lazy ,to gather evidence themselves?

[JI7]

1. most of it is just rants from those who support someone other than Kerry

in 2008 if Kerry were to run again.

if they were serious about some of the things they want Kerry to do or say they would demand it of whoever they plan on supporting also. but they wont.

it was just like last elections where they kept going after Kerry for not objecting to the 2000 elections. even with the fact that Al Gore didn't want anyone to object to it. and they don't go after anyone else this way.

[saracat]

2. And much of it is by those whose candidate didn't win the primary!

They want to punish Kerry and all his supporters for it. The lack of gratitude for what K/E did is appalling. It makes me wonder why anyone would go into politics.This is why we haven't got that many wonderful candidates.It isn't the attacks from the outside.It is this kind of treatment from those who should be supportive.That being said, I believe in criticism. But I also believe we must give credit where credit is due. These people don't give credit to Kerry for ANYTHING!

[JI7]

3. exactly

they don't have to support Kerry if he runs again and they can be critical of how he may have done things in the campaign.

but that's not just what happens. they attack and bash him on every single thing he does even if it's positive. and he did do many great things and continues to.

he totally kicked ass in the bolton hearings.

[ginnyinWI]

18. because to their way of thinking,

If Kerry is not white, then he must be black! Oh and don't forget, Blame the Victim!!

[karynnj]

5. What's really interesting about your comment re their future candidate

is that it a cool parallel with the 2001 - 2003 time period. That they are not assigning their 2008 candidate the assignment of single handedly fixing the voting system, begs the question why not? They now expect that Kerry should have taken on this task in 2001-2003. The fact is that it needs to be done at the state and local level and obviously needs to be done by a large group of people. (The federal legislation just set guidelines and did not really fix the local systems.)

Now that we have seen voting problems that lead to disenfranchisement in two elections (although there is reason to assume that there have probably been systematic problems before that.), the Democratic party needs to figure out how to fix this. The person who probably should spearhead this now is Dean or someone he appoints. This should be a full time job and this person would need to be able to hire people. They would need to investigate every state and lobby for fixes to identified problems. A few problems, like the machine fraud, are not local.

Running the election is not a partisan endeavor. The only reason we need to work this issue is that we have been the ones impacted by the problems. This makes the solution harder because we can't unilaterally implement fixes. We need to make this a public issue and lobby for transparent systems that all can trust - which as a person who has voted in suburbs all my life, I always assumed we had.
Kerry in his speech is calling on people to become activist on this and on other issues. This is positive and (other than the legislation that he is co-sponsoring with Boxer and Clinton)is the best contribution he can make now. It would be helpful if Dean or someone designates someone to lead people willing to volunteer to work on this. (If Kerry did this he would rightfully be criticized for over stepping.)

Kerry could not have performed this role prior to 2004. He was working both on his campaign and as a Senator. He, as the candidate, was not in charge of the nuts and bolts of how the election was actually done. Any of their favorites for 2008, are probably doing what Kerry did then for their campaigns, while doing their day jobs. I think that maybe Kerry was too successful in portraying himself as someone who could lead both the country and the party, so when he lost, some are taking it as a betrayal.

On the other boards, maybe the way to address this is to say that if Kerry insisted on leading this effort he would be diminishing Dean's real role. Kerry instead should use his visibility to raise the issue and to motivate people to sign on now to fix it. (ie just what he's been doing) Kerry is just respecting Dean's territory.

[ginnyinWI]

7. good answer

Another thing to tell them is that it is THEIR country, and THEY are the ones who are going to have to fix it if they want it fixed, and quit being such crybabies. It isn't Kerry's job, or even Dean's job, entirely. It's really immature of them to just play the blame game.

In Wisconsin, our Governor has just laid out a set of proposals for having better elections here. He's a Democrat, naturally. It is at the state level and lower that things can really get done. But yeah, I agree with you about black box voting. Congress should step in and pass some laws and fix that problem.

[BlueIris]

4. The "spineless wimp" comments are the ones I hate THE MOST.

Because they're about KERRY of all candidates. ACK. HATE. Especially because they're coming from the people who ultimately know the LEAST about election fraud or Kerry (or, in my view, the role of MSM in continued supression of the facts of the stolen election, or anything about the way the Democratic Party works). It was only through studying these facts--for months; it's a continual effort, really--that I came to the conclusion Kerry had essentially no choice but to concede when and how he did. The investigation of the election fraud and prosecution of its perpetrator's was (or still is, depending on your perspective) something for others to do, although the publication of the facts is still, because the MSM has utterly checked out, on all of our shoulders. Nothing that hasn't been said on DU before, but that's still how I feel. You're a better, or at least more restrained person that I am, saracat.

[paulk]

6. I really don't understand why those types of gratuitous insults

are allowed here on DU.

It's one thing to criticize, but some of the ad hominum attacks against Democrats on this site are no better than anything Rush and his ilk have to offer.

I try to ignore them, but it's hard sometimes, especially when it's someone I have a lot of respect for, (like Kerry).

[ginnyinWI]

8. I suppose it's hard for the mods to draw a line

It's hard to decide what is a legitimate criticism and what isn't. I, for one, am getting very sick and tired of those on the far left in their attempts to discredit every other view. They are every bit as bad as the far right.

I'm still angry at something I heard on the Daily Show last night. The guest was a conservative who wrote "The Great Left Wing Conspiracy" I think it's called. He and Jon Stewart agreed that Kerry was "a terrible candidate" and then he went on to say that the far left (MoveOn, Moore, etc.) felt that without them promoting Kerry, there would have been a huge landslide for Bush.

It's arrogance like that that we do not need. They don't realize that most of America is much more moderate, and that if they ever did manage to get a far-left candidate running for president, the results would not be pretty. Bush had to run as a moderate to get "elected" the first time, and when he turned out to be far-right in reality, he had to put a whole assortment of moderates up at his next convention to try to convince people that he still was a moderate. They bought it, because they'd already been convinced (by lying liars) that Kerry is farther left than Bush is far right! There were other factors, but I think this was one of the reasons Kerry didn't get more votes. Most of America is moderate.

[politicasista]

9. I don't watch The Daily Show but I heard that's what went down

Didn't Stewart just have Kerry on there months ago? First Whoopi, now him. Who is next?:shrug:

[GRLMGC]

12. Man, I'm convinced its human nature to kick people when they're

down. I swear, I'm getting more and more cynical each day.

[whometense]

10. It bothered me too.

Sometimes, in his effort to put guests at ease, Jon Stewart goes over the line, and I think he did in this case. I've been thinking about it since last night, and may even write to him.

I'm a total Daily Show devotee, and a Jon Stewart fan. They say flat-out that they always go for the joke - but this was a cheap one at best. I just haven't figured out how to say it without sounding like a typical thin-skinned humorless liberal. Sigh.

[JI7]

11. i hope Kerry goes on his show again

and i don't mean if/when he decides to run for President again.

but before that just for a light discussion. he can try to get in a word on his kids health care bill also.

i wouldn't take what he said too personally though since he has said things which upset Dean supporters also. i didn't watch but for a while many were really upset about some things he said about him and how he is a loser.

[whometense]

13. That would be great.

Much as I love Jon Stewart, there were a lot of things said post-election that were more than a tiny bit lefty freeperish. I think they were brutally disappointed (just like the AAR hosts were), and there was bitterness. Some of that probably lingers.

I don't take it personally, but am a tigress when someone attacks Kerry - I can be quite ferocious on the subject. No one should mess with me over my kids, my husband, or Kerry. ;-)

[ginnyinWI]

15. Yup, I'm sensitive on that subject, too!

But I don't care. Actually, this is the first Daily Show I've watched since right after the election when some hurtful things were being said. Then the first time I watch it again, I hear something like this. :grr:

[karynnj]

14. Totally agree

The "I hate Bush, BFEE" people were going to vote against Bush and the ONLY way to do that effectively was to vote for Kerry. I think they don't realize that even to mainstream liberals saying some of these things would raise eyebrows and cause derison. If they would have learned anything from 1968 when Nixon got votes because the hippies were associated with the Democrats, even though the Hippies (and many pure liberals) sat out the election because Humphrey would not completely turn on Johnson.

They probably hurt Kerry as much as they helped him. Kerry was determined to run a clean positive campaign. The fact that polls showed that more people though the Democrats had negative campaigning than the Republicans could be put down to them. They also loudly and adamantly agreed with the Republicans that there was no difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq - either on quilt for starting the war or likelihood of getting out, because of their inability to see anything not black or white.

Kerry's numbers drastically went up when people saw him at the debates. He did attack Bush hard, but politely and respectfully. Before the convention, they claimed that they had made Bush negative enough and Kerry just had to be Presidential and likable - now they are saying he should have been an attack dog. I think he would have lost in a land slide if he would have followed their advise.

I also hated the he's not the Kerry of 1971. Well, he did mature, become more skilled and got a lot of experience. But, they forget that every account referred to him as polite, well mannered and well spoken. If someone is not a(and doesn't even like) firebrand revolutionary at 27 when leading an antiwar movement, does it not sound silly to expect him to be that as a 60 year old Fourth Term Senator?

[ginnyinWI]

17. yes, good points.

I so agree with your second point, about the negativity. They think they helped Kerry, but maybe they actually hurt him more. A lot of people didn't like Michael Moore's approach, seeing it as unpatriotic. The anti-war rhetoric came across as not wanting to deal with the terrorist threat.

Kerry on the other hand, wanted to attack ideas, not personality. ("W stands for wrong" is an example) We'll never know for sure,but I don't think being an attack dog would have helped. What would have helped would have been to have a more unified party message that sounded as well-reasoned as Kerry did.

The Kerry of 1971 wasn't an all-out radical, despite what some think. That's why he was as effective as he was. He hasn't really changed from the way he was then. He spoke to Congress to get them to pass laws to end the war, he didn't go out and bomb the Capitol building. He quit when his group started to drift that way.

[saracat]

16. I don't know that I agree that "most of America is moderate".

I am NOT a moderate. I am a liberal. Of course, I imagine it depends on what your definition of "moderate is! I voted for Kerry because he was the most liberal. I didn't support Dean BECAUSE he was a moderate. He is proving himself more a "MODERATE" and a scion of the DLC, whom I loathe everyday. I supported him for chair thinking he was the best of the lot and would be outspoken on liberal social issues, as that was how he was presented during the campaign. He has immediately reverted to his centrist roots and catered to the red vote ever since.
Kerry on the other hand, is reinforcing my belief in him as a liberal with every issue he tackles and every vote he casts!

[ginnyinWI]

20. yes

I'm a liberal too, and recognized Kerry as a kindred spirit right away. Perception seems to trump reality with a lot of people, though, and Dean was perceived to be more left--probably because of his anti-war statements. I think that's at the heart of it--what the candidates' stands on war were. We see how often that IWR thing is brought up! So Kerry wasn't far enough left for some of these people, based on that. One-issue voters!

When I say moderate, I guess I'm defining that as, "Not Loony-Left". I guess that makes a liberal like Kerry a moderate, by that definition. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, whether liberal or moderately conservative. They are not radically left or radically right.

I saw Ward Churchill on TV the other day, and he was saying Kerry, his old "VVAW buddy", was a "sell-out" and a "lying M-F-er" and stuff like that. That is the radical left that I'm talking about!

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Hahahahaha ..... Ward Churchill is such a NUTCASE

Kerry was his "old VVAW buddy," eh? Funny how I don't remember EVER hearing about Kerry interacting with him. Besides, I find it hard to believe that someone as virunlently anti-military as Churchill would have even supported Kerry or the VVAW at the time. I mean, they were against the war, but they were still Vietnam veterans, which in that nutjob's book means that they were heartless, ruthless babykillers out for some Gook blood. :eyes:

I got into a fight on DU once over Ward Churchill... it was suggested to me that, by not defending his odious comments about 9/11, that I was not "defending liberal principles." Excuse me all to hell, but cheering the deaths of 3000 Americans and saying that we have it coming to us is NOT my idea of "liberal principles."

Lefty freepers are no better than righty freepers, and I rest my case.

[whometense]

22. PLUS, a lot of people tend to lump

all the VVAW people together. Kerry was way on the moderate wing of that group, and when some of the members started discussing assassination he left pronto.

It's the other side of JK. Those who want to call him a radical point to his protest activities. They don't want to talk about how moderate and well-spoken he was in representing that scruffy group.

And those who were to his left may want to call him a traitor to the "cause" (as they define it) but conveniently forget that he was the one who put his ass on the line, front and center, when the war was a red-hot issue. They were the same people you saw him talking down during "Going Upriver."

What a flip-flopper, huh? Sheesh. I agree with your verdict. All freepers are jackasses, left or right.

[JohnKleeb]

25. but yet those who act like Kerry is just like Bush are true liberals

:eyes: Sorry but my role model politically and philosophically would soon be John Kerry rather than Ward Churchill, a man who makes the left look bad.

[JohnKleeb]

24. I wonder what a Senator Ward Churchill would do

That dude pisses me off, for one by comparing office workers to Adolf Eichmann and two for trying to act like he's some kind of working class advocate by saying oh I didnt mean the restaurant workers and etc, I just meant the office workers. Kerry is one brave guy, I read about how he handled that lying son of a bitch Bolton yesterday, good for him and the other dems who pounced on that liar.

[paulk]

23. "every bit as bad as the far right"

Sheesh....

I had a little conversation with one of those just today - what pisses me off is that they use the same tactics as the far right - they spin, twist, distort, and when that doesn't work, they outright lie. In my time here at DU, I've come to regard these people as just as much the enemy as any right winger.

Especially when they haul out the "I'm a morally superior being, I'm going to vote third party" crap. It's the politics of selfishness, and it really pisses me off.

:rant:

[blm]

19. VERY well done.

I'll use that tactic myself, if you don't mind the rest of us following your cue.

[saracat]

26. Thank you. Be my guest!

:)