This Murtha stuff is just more DU flavor-of-the-week crap.

[rockymountaindem]

First of all, I respect Murtha. I'll be the first to admit that I'd never heard of him before yesterday, but it seems to me that he really does care about the troops, and he wants to do what's best for them and for America. I also tip my cap to his Vietnam service and years of service in the reserves.

I'm glad he's adding his voice to the list of Dems speaking out and providing alternatives to Bush's "stay the course" cop-outs. However, I don't understand why the "out now" crowd has latched on to him over the past 24 hours. As I understand it, Murtha's plan is "out now, back later". Now, I happen to disagree with that, but I'm not going to denigrate Murtha. I'm not going to chuck his plan out the window without some debate. But seriously, why are people using this to create yet more controversy in the Democratic party where it doesn't exist? I doubt the majority of the party divided itself into the Kerry and Murtha camps yesterday. I just saw an awful exchange between one of ours and another DUer who I used to respect. Why?

People need to get ahold of themselves. Kerry saying "I respectfully disagree" does not mean K-man is out to ruin the man of the hour, Murtha (despite what Ameriblog says). In a time when we should be discussing the plans on their merits, people are viewing them as nothing more than vehicles for political maneuvering that isn't even taking place. DU is really full of lemmings who will just follow whoever seems to be in the lead. Does anyone even remember that Feingold was the first Dem to start talking about withdrawal a month ago? No. He was bumped by Kerry, who has now been shuffled off in favor of Murtha (whose plan would probably not appeal to the out now crowd if only they would actually read up on it). Of course we don't want debate. DU wants only intrigue, and if there isn't any intrigue, we'll just have to pretend it's there.

We're swimming in circles and I'm getting tired of it.

[second edition]

1. Sad to say your right. What has happened to DU ?

I am beginning to think many on this site aren't even Dems.

[Mass]

2. Given the thread on Pat Buchanan a couple days ago

many are not Dems, IMHO.

[frogmarch]

3. Well, one thing that seems obvious

to me, at least, is that many at DU hate Kerry more than they do anyone in the Bush cartel.

[whometense]

4. Hate?

Or Fear?

I think there's a thin line there. The better he does, the better he looks, the more they see him impacting their favorites' chances in 2008. Very mature attitude. :sarcasm:

[politicasista]

6. They always come around every time Kerry said or does something positive

like JI7 said, they don't care about the issues, they just love to bash cause they think it make them and their people feel superior.

[ray of light]

17. I agree...compare their reaction to how freepers react to Cindy.

You'll see...it's the same irate name calling.


--no logic or reasoning
--no willingness to hear the other side
--no discussion of finer points of the matter.

Same thing.

[Mass]

5. They only hear what they wanted to hear.

As far as being able to make an analysis of what was said, I am not sure they can. They cannot even see that most propositions that have been made (that is Feingold, Kerry, Murtha for now) go in the same direction: get the troops out of there as soon as it is reasonnable and do what is necessary for that

They happen to disagree with the way to do that:

- Kerry proposes to put the troops into garnisons and out of the way,
- Murtha's to put there out of the country but to let Marines close-by to reenter if possible. (Feingold, to my knowledge, has not said what to do and how, but I may have missed it);
- all talk about military action not being the solution and about a diplomatic solution.

This said, I posted Murtha's speech because he is not that far off what other ex vets like Kerry or Hagel have said. They care about the troops and this is what is pushing them to propose solutions and not to sit and play politics. (I would hope that McCain is pushed by the same instinct, just misguided).

I would just hope that these guys would sit together and talk. (The repubs are trying a new stunt: they are talking about putting Murtha's bill to a up or down vote). They really need to make a common press conference about what they agree with, to show that some Dems at least are united, not divided.

[jillan]

7. I was thinking about this last nite...those threads really upset me.

I was thinking that I need to compare the two plans - Murtha's and Kerry's side by side.

I didn't hear all of Murtha's speech, but from what I did hear, he wants the troops out of Iraq, and moved to the outskirts.

Kerry wants to start bringing them home.

I think Kerry might be getting the short end of the stick here. That all of these lefty freeps have A.D.D. and only read the first sentence or two. I have noticed that in some of my posts out there, someone will respond to the first sentence and not read the rest of the post.

Guess I just got myself a weekend project.

[beachmom]

8. You know, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with somebody

else's plan.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when McCain criticised Kerry's plan on a radio program. He said "I disagree", and a lot of folks on this very board were livid. And I defended McCain. He didn't say "Kerry is a traitor to this country" or similar crap. He just said "I disagree". He might have said a little more on the Senate floor (I didn't hear what he said), which prompted Kerry to trade barbs ("he mischaracterized my plan"), so that's maybe different. But, in the end, I welcome debate between McCain and Kerry, because they have two different plans and I would like to hear an honest debate between them.

But the "out now" crowd are purists and are just in general, a bunch of arrogant jerks. To be fair, some of them are in the miltary or have relatives who are in Iraq. They're allowed to rail against the whole world, including Kerry. But the rest of the lot are just jerks, who have no interest in honest debate. And don't get me on Kos. His blog is VERY popular (it got ANOTHER mention in The Economist this week), so every negative thing he says about Kerry is just bad, bad, bad. DU I'm less worried about as it is the laughing stock of the MSM. But Daily Kos -- he's trouble. I mean Senators Boxer, Feingold and Obama have had diaries on that site, as well as many congressmen. Kos and the diarists there have broken big stories, like John Bolton's behavior and even today on Bob Woodward. He is viewed as a legitimate voice of the Left; very powerful. And as far as I'm concerned, he has about as much ethics as anyone from the Right Wing Noise Machine. He has the ability of taking Kerry down in the primaries the way McCain was taken down in '00 by the right wing of the Republican party. I think he is not above smearing Kerry REALLY BAD. You just wait until 2007/08. I have a very bad feeling about this guy.

[whometense]

9. I don't trust Kos either.

But he did everything he could to take Kerry down in the last primaries, and you know how that turned out.

He's loud and self-important, but in the end, he's got a very small audience and a very small megaphone.

[beachmom]

12. I think variables have changed, and the liberal blogosphere

has increased in power. And I feel like it's all the wrong people who are getting the mentions in the MSM. I want sensible solutions to real problems, not more cyber demagogues.

I fear that Kos will have become more powerful by '07, and if he types it on that blog, like the SBVT, it will go up the food chain to cable news. (I'm talking about the primary season) I didn't read Kos during the last primary season (how bad was it?), but he is a grave concern to any Kerry run for the WH in '08. His undue influence should not be discounted.

(Question: were senators and congressmen writing diaries on Kos in '03/04?)

[whometense]

25. It was awful.

It was full-on full-time assault on Kerry personally and on his campaign. It was just what you see now, only with perhaps even more venom. At this point I see Kos trying to demean Kerry, but it's a kneejerk response, unreasoned and unreasonable. And his bias is very clear.

I don't think it matters who writes diaries there. A lot of people hang out at Kos who don't pay a lot of attention to what Kos says. Or who flatly disagree with him. DailyKos is a popular political living room, but I believe Kos's personal political power is extremely limited.

In 2003 he saw himself as a kingmaker. He was bitterly disappointed when he was proven not to be, when Dean's star fell from the sky. Being incapable of introspection, he blamed Kerry for Dean's loss. He couldn't imagine any way Dean could have lost, except if Kerry somehow cheated. It was never fully explained how you could cheat in the Iowa caucus system Iowa, and anyway Kos ended up looking like a deluded sore loser. To most people, anyway, except for own little amen corner.

I don't know that he should be ignored. I just don't see him having that kind of influence.

[karynnj]

10. I objected because he said Kerry was urging withdrawal

and was mischaracterizing his plan. I had no problem with them disagreeing - in fact to the contrary I like that McCain has been honest and up front with his view.

[beachmom]

11. I think you heard more than me, Karynnj, so in that sense I defer

to you on what he precisely said. But I don't know. The venom directed at Kerry is just completely uncalled for. Kerry didn't go as far as McCain about Murtha. He only said "I disagree". And the wrath unleashed on him is just ridiculous. Who ARE these people anyway, and do they speak for America? I think not.

[jillan]

13. I have visited over there, but have not spent much time.

KOS is mentioned alot in the msm, as well as Huffington.

Maybe we should move this group over to Kos?

Why do you think Kos is so negative about Kerry?
Please explain it to me like I am a little kid, because all of this Kerry bashing just baffles me. I supported him before the election because I knew he would be a fantastic President. Just because he lost (?) doesn't mean I still don't see those same qualities. Kerry is a great American who is proud to serve this country.

Did I think he should have waited to conceede? YES
Was I pissed that he did it the next day? YES!!!!
Do I think Kerry has had the same feelings looking back to that day? YES!!

Do they want Kerry to just go away? Do they really want to lose one of the strongest voices in the Senate? Why don't they see all that he has accomplished over the last year? All I can do is shake my head. I just don't understand.

[whometense]

26. See my post at #25

for my explanation, anyway. I'd NEVER go back to Kos. I hung out there a lot in early 2004, fighting against the Kerry haters, and that was enough for me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. He makes me uneasy too

Honestly, I think someone should dig deeper into his own skeletons. Everyone knows that he was on Dean's payroll, and that it was undoubtedly for more than just "techinical consulting" or some bullshit like that. How long, and how much money? The media seemed to bring that story up briefly, then dropped it.

I would love to blow it back open again. On one hand, the primaries are over and I don't care to undermine Dean anymore. But on the other hand- do you know who Kos reminds me of? John O'Neill. Both were hacks, paid to tear down their employer's opponent (Kerry). Both went way over the top and seemed to acquire a personal grudge against the opponent they were paid to "discredit." Both were humiliated publicly in some way by said opponent, which cemented the personal nature of the grudge. Both continued with their lies and hackery long after their employer (Nixon, Dean) took them off the payroll.

Does anyone else see the parallels? Kos could be just as dangerous as John O'Neill - I think they are cut from the same cloth. I would be in favor of anything that would take this guy down, and if that means exposing him for the whore he is, then so be it.

[jenndar]

20. Yikes.

You make good points. The only thing I don't get is why Kos acts the way he does, other than the Dean thing. John O'Neill has basically said that his whole project in life is to tear down John Kerry, and, though it's disgusting and petty, he made his motivations clear. Is loving Howard Dean enough reason for Kos to devote his life to discrediting JK? (I'm not snarking, I really want to know.) It just seems like the "Dean v. Kerry" moment in history is over.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Like O'Neill, it has nothing to do with the original motivation anymore

O'Neill harbors a deep, vicious grudge against Kerry that transcended anything Nixon ordered him to do. I think the same is true for Kos. Long after the virulent animosity between Dean and Kerry has ended, Kos still hates Kerry like he's being paid to do it - only, he's not being paid to do it anymore (that we know of :scared: ) I think part of it for both Kos and O'Neill is the attention-whoredom element - over the top vicious attacks against a prominent Senator get them attention, which is one thing they crave. I think both Kos (and O'Neill, to a somewhat lesser extent) fear becoming irrelevant more than anything. It is their kryptonite. As long as they are getting attention, they are happy. Also, there is the personal grudge matter. Kerry survived despite all Kos could throw at him last year - so now it's personal. Kos has a drastically inflated sense of self-importance - he even took credit for Dean being named DNC chair. I think taking Kerry out of the race in 2008 is the ultimate prize for him; a notch on his belt, so to speak. You can bet your ass that if Kerry decides not to run, Kos will crow and take credit for "showing him". If he runs, Kos will be even more nasty this time around, and if Kerry does not win, he will gleefully take credit. He is a petty, vindictive, spiteful, arrogant bastard who never forgets a perceived slight and cannot STAND anyone who does not treat him like the king of the liberal blogosphere. In that respect, he reminds me of Bush, as well.

[jenndar]

22. Okay, I see your point now.

When people decide somebody's a thorn in his or her side, they can just lose all sense of proportion when dealing with that person.

[sandnsea]

23. We kicked Kosass before

We'll do it again. I'm not worried about him. He's just an annoying little twit is all. But who knows, maybe he'll grow up in a few years, he had a new baby 2 years ago. Parenthood has a way of making you see things just a bit differently.

[jenndar]

14. I think it's true of the MSM, too.

Murtha's on the cover of newspapers all over the country today. Good for him. Iraq is a big deal and he's obviously a good guy. I'm sorry that JK's Iraq speeches haven't gotten the same attention, because I think they're frankly better than Murtha's, but, you know, who am I?

The MSM is very reluctant to imagine a situation in which JK is actually the person to step in and right some of the administration's wrongs. I think that's too bad because 1. JK's commitment to keeping some of his campaign promises after losing an election is amazing and inspiring, and, unfortunately, really rare, and 2. the MSM is ignoring a lot of the truth about Congress' opposition to Iraq policies.

[jillan]

15. Today in my paper, they had a huge article about Murtha

Not a dam word about Kerry.

They mentioned how the other dems were coming up with different plans against the war. They mentioned Reid. Nada about my favorite senator.

[Island Blue]

16. I was quite shocked to see a front page above the fold

article in the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer that not only featured John Kerry's photograph (along with *, Cheney and Murtha) but also mainly uses quotes from Senator Kerry. This is a good thing IMO. The N & O is based in Raleigh, but is read widely througout the state.

Many Democrats have since said they voted to support the resolution based on their belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. No such weapons have been found.

"I believed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles. ... I believed the president," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told CNN. "I would not have voted for that resolution given what we know today."

LAST RESORT?

In his CNN interview, Kerry also couched his vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq, saying it was linked to a long list of steps Bush was expected to take before going to war.

"What many of us felt we were giving the president was the authority to use force as a last resort if -- if -- he had fulfilled his promises, gone as a last resort, built up a true coalition, done the inspections to the greatest degree possible."

The authorization resolution required Bush to exhaust all diplomatic options before going to war but makes no specific reference to coalition building.


Here's the online version of the story: http://www.newsobserver.com/505/story/368597.html

[jenndar]

19. I looked at that article.

It's a good overview, esp. when so many articles have been choosing one high-profile Dem. and pitting him against the other Dems. I'm glad Kerry, Murtha, Reid, Feingold and others are all making a lot of noise in Congress, and I'm confident that JK will emerge as a leader on this fight - as long as the MSM lets him.

[TheDonkey]

24. MURTHA FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

I love Murtha. He's my representative in PA, a Democrat in one of the most conservative areas around Pittsburgh.

BUT I don't really agree with Murtha on this, and I think Kerry handled the situation well.