Could be just coincidence, but I notice that every time important stories

[blm]

come out regarding Kerry, ALOT of threads are started attacking him. Ramped up interest in tearing Kerry down.

It happened when he requested an inquiry into the Downing Street Memos.

It happened on his Alito filbuster.

It happened on his Iraq withdrawal plan.

It's happening with the Kennedy article that pretty much concludes that Kerry BEAT Bush by over 3%.

Sorry - but, I am not a coincidence theorist.

Just think how much more could get done if there weren't so many attack threads where falsehoods must be countered.

[LeftCoast]

1. He lost against the worst president in US history

A lot of people are still kinda cranky about that...

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

3. So you don't believe the system is broken, and he really

wouldn't have lost if elections were fair?

[LeftCoast]

7. Honestly, I don't care for the election fraud argument too much

I feel it absolves Democrats and democratic candidates of all responsibility for the '04 loss (and any other loss for that matter). I'm also concerned at the apathy the argument generates. "My vote won't count so why bother?" I'm not saying that electronic voting isn't a problem, but I don't believe it was the deciding factor in this particular race. :shrug:

[babylonsister]

11. Just curious; did you read Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone?

Post #9 has some snips and a link.

[AuntiBush]

84. Beat me to it.

Was about to mention Kennedy's article myself.

[in_cog_ni_to]

160. Mark Crispin Miller's book..."Fooled Again" is a good recommendation too.

:) One can never have to much info on election fraud, IMCPO.:hi:

[mdmc]

165. WAS the election stolen

not the election WAS stolen....

[blm]

13. Blaming candidates for not doing the job of the Dem party infrastructure

that is supposed to be in place to safeguard our votes?

Looked to me like Kerry WON all his matchups with Bush. Bush's TEAM outfoxed the Dem team and they did it starting a few years before we even had a nominee.

[LeftCoast]

15. Well, that's how you feel about it and that's ok

But expecting everyone else to feel just like you do may be a bit much to ask...

[ProSense]

18. Do you believe

the Iraq war was trumped up, the media was complicit or any of these incidents in the following thread impacted the election?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2660209&mesg_id=2660209

[LeftCoast]

21. I don't know what that has to do with Kerry

:shrug:

[blm]

26. Do you blame the media for pumping up Bush as a hero after 9-11 or is that

just the people's fault?

Do you blame the media for covering up Bush's negligence and crimes or is that just the people's fault for being casual news viewers?

MediaMatters and alot of others have noted the near complete blanket of protection Bush gets and has been getting since long before Kerry was the nominee - but, if Kerry's name is in the mix then it's just an excuse, right?

[LeftCoast]

37. "The Media" certainly didn't make Kerry's job easier

I won't argue that, but does Kerry bear no responsibility for his loss in your opinion?

[blm]

44. Yes - for not knowing beforehand that the GOP controls most media

and the voting machines. He should have known that, but the Dem party heads before Dean wouldn't consider it and poo-poo any suggestion of bias from the media.

Thankfully, Dean knows better now what Terry MacAuliffe should have known in 2001.

[ProSense]

28. What specifically, since these are about Kerry and the election? n/t

[MH1]

91. You DON'T??? Wow. nt.

[blm]

19. I don't expect them to feel the same way - it's the coincidence of the

ACCELERATED attacks always coupled with an important story that peaks my notice.

I know and respect alot of DUers who have different opinions than mine - and they would say the same.

[havocmom]

27. As one who has knocked heads with you AND agreed with you.

gotta say, you are fight on. I can go to a handful of decent news sites, scope out the latest and presume, with good accuracy, what I will see on DU. The attacks ramp up so predictably it qualifies as a rut!
(And if any of you are hunters, ya know just what sort of mind-set I am talkin about)

[LeftCoast]

32. As you may be able to tell, I'm not the world's biggest John Kerry fan

That having been said, I know that he is a good Democrat and when the time came in Nov, I voted for him. Just as you see an effort to tear him down with each post, many people see the endless pro-Kerry posts as just attempts to have him run in '08.

The great thing about DU is that here, we are encouraged to discuss and debate party differences. You just have to expect that not everyone here is going to be as thrilled about your candidate as you may be.

I mean look what we have in this thread alone. We find that it was all a big conspiracy. Kerry didn't lose it was Diebold, or maybe it was the media. No, it was a group of conspirators on DU that caused him to lose. In fact, I have no doubt that some people reading my posts here are convinced that I'm a troll now.

[ProSense]

34. That's not the only thing being said. Certainly you don't believe

the only problem with the election was Kerry?

[LeftCoast]

40. Nope. But, the fact remains he lost agaist the worst Pres in US history

Are you saying that no Democrat could have won? If so, what's the point? Why are we all here?

[blm]

46. We should be working to EXPOSE the GOP control of media and voting

machines - you can't say those aren't facts - they are well-documented facts. There is nothing tinfoil about their ownership papers.

[ProSense]

48. I never said that, but the

factors posted in the link provided certainly weren't typical. The war and the media's promotion of the lies, resulting significant public support for not only the war, but also believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11, didn't help matters with Kerry denouncing the war.

[LeftCoast]

51. Well, Kerry's support for the war certainly didn't help him much either

[ProSense]

65. He did not support the war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

You can also read his speeches denouncing the war before the war was launched.

[Critters2]

102. He voted for the IWR

or did I imagine that? And how is that not support for the war?

[ProSense]

106. Show me in the IWR where it states that it's a vote for war! n/t

[BurtWorm]

109. What does IWR stand for again?

;)

[Critters2]

110. Stop being so logical

That is SOOO annoying!!

[ProSense]

113. Is that the actual title? n/t

[BurtWorm]

120. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Would you have voted for something with that title?



Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

[BurtWorm]

124. Here is the Authorization language

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

<I've bolded the language that I, for one, saw as carte blanche. Anyone who was paying attention to the Bush administatration's legal interpretations should have been very careful to agree to such terms. Unless of course they had no problem with Bush being the determiner of the necessity of, and appropriate use of, force in Iraq.>


(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

[ProSense]

183. You can bold war and ignore the rest.

You forgot to bold "in order to" and the specifics of the determination.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The IWR laid out a set of criteria that had to be met and specifically stated that Bush could only go to war as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat. Bush's violation: He ignored the criteria and started a war without the existence of an imminent threat to the United States.

The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met and only in the face of an imminent threat.

In the face of an imminent threat, the War Powers Resolution allows the president to go to war without prior Congressional approval. The president needs to report back to Congress withing 60 days after executing a war---provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

snip...

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

The IWR gave Bush 48 hrs to report back, so the IWR didn't make it easier. It specifically stated the steps Bush had to take before considering the use of force when all other options for a peaceful solution were exhausted and the a clear and imminent threat was present. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied the specific criteria laid out by Congress.

[Critters2]

185. None of which would matter, if Kerry and the other frightened

Democrats had stood up and voted "no"!

[ProSense]

187. Nonsense! n/t

[Critters2]

111. Telling the chimp he has carte blanche to start a war

any ol' time his little heart desires ISN'T a vote for war?!!

The IWR was unconstitutional, in that only Congress can declare war. Those who voted for it--yes, including Kerry--lacked the balls to stand against the Repugs or to stand FOR the Constitution.
Either way, such a person should not be president.

[ProSense]

114. Show me the language that states that it was a declaration of war n/t

[Critters2]

116. It wasn't

It gave the president the authority to declare war. The problem with this--and the Senator from Massachusetts should have known this--is that the Constitution reserves the power to declare war for Congress. Congress DOES NOT have the power to hand that authority to the Executive branch.

Congress told the president to go ahead and declare war--in spite of the Constitution. Every member of Congress who voted for this demonstrated poor knowledge of and disrespect for the US Constitution.

Not the qualities I want in a president.


Oh, and a little off topic...but I think the President should be a product of public schools. I feel strongly about this, and won't support a graduate of private elementary or high schools in the primaries.

Discuss...

[ProSense]

118. You still haven't shown me the language. Presidents have powers too! n/t

[Critters2]

119. Not to declare war they don't

The Constitution only grants that power to Congress. Which is a problem when you have a warmongering president and a Congress with no balls.

[Critters2]

123. Constitution of the United States of America

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

[ProSense]

186. Did you forget

the War Powers Resolution:

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent
of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or
in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically
provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all
other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2)
specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm

Like it or not, the president has the power to go to war. Bush falsified the evidence to claim that Iraq was a threat to national security.

[Critters2]

189. Not all Constitutional scholars consider the War Powers Resolution

Constitutional. The final arbiter is the Constitution itself, and the IWR does not meet its requirements.

No matter how many Kerry supporters say it does.

[ProSense]

191. Are you going to blame Kerry for the War Powers Resolution too? n/t

[Critters2]

194. No. Just the war.....the war he voted for. n/t

[saltpoint]

55. First, the loss is not yet a concluded matter. The RFK piece is extremel

y persuasive. Let's let John Conyers' people continue to do their work. They're an astute bunch.

Next, if the results stand and no further hard evidence is found, one man does not lose an election. Elections are collective gestures of the body politic. Millions of people are involved at all levels.

It's not fair to make it a prize fight with 2 guys slugging at each other until one falls down.

The apparatus of elections is vast, and the millions of people involved are diverse and scattered. You can't anymore say that Kerry lost to Bush than you can say that Montana failed to vote for Kerry. Some people in Montana DID vote for Kerry, and several million others as well nationwide -- a record total, in fact.

And if Blackwell and those shenanigans he pulled on Election Day are ever revealed, I think we may find that John Kerry carried Ohio.

[blm]

38. Many people see pro-Conyers posts and are those attempts to see him run?

Why is it hard to accept that there are proKerry threads because he's a good senator who crafts good legislation, crafts strong policy positions, has stuck his neck out more than most and has a long history of opposing BushInc?

What's the difference when it comes to Kerry?

[LeftCoast]

41. The difference is that Kerry might run

[saltpoint]

47. I'm thinking he definitely will run. But the point of his running is

not a question of qualifications, is it?

He's both Constitutionally qualified and constitutionally qualified. A strong case could be made that he would be a far, far greater chief executive than the current incumbent.

We could certainly use an uplift. Even the idea of a press conference would be refreshing, instead of listening to Dubya spewing his babble all over the rose garden.

There's no prohibition against qualified people running for things they're qualified for.

[LeftCoast]

49. He's perfectly within his rights, just as we are when we criticize him

I really think he's a good guy and a fine Senator. He'd also be light-years better than Chimpy. I still want another candidate.

[saltpoint]

57. Our point is not that you should NOT have another candidate; that's great.

Our point is that posts slamming Kerry are legion, and tend to increase in number and intensity in given patterns.

Also there is a difference in tone in someone disagreeing about a candidate's position and character assassination. Mods of all people know this.

You see the distinction.

[_dynamicdems]

143. Would posts like these be allowed here?

Gore was a "chicken shit coward."

"The RW was right: Feingold is a flip-flopping political opportunist."


I'm asking this because you are a moderator and I've submitted alerts that have on these exact quotations as they were made in regard to Senator Kerry. I'd really like to know why people are allowed to make these kinds or remarks only against Kerry.

If I am wrong about this, please enlighten me. As yet, my alerts have gone unresponded to.

Thanks.

[blm]

50. And he set the bar at 59 million votes, and likely 3million more than that

at least.

And that is WITH a prez made out to be a figure of heroic proportions by the media.

When Clinton won he faced a prez who the people lost trust in BECAUSE of the headlines from IranContra and BCCI. Thank Kerry for that, btw.

[saltpoint]

52. LeftCoast, I do not believe any Kerry fan here on DU is asking

Clark fans or Edwards fans or Feingold fans -- or anyone else's fans to be as thrilled with Kerry as they are for their guy.

Frankly, that misses the point.

The point being made is that concerted efforts are made by others to discredit or slam Kerry on DU's boards, and Kerry group people do not assault other candidates on the same boards -- they may disagree on an issue, an incident, a vote, a particular angle, but you've seen the posts yourself: the Kerry group does not post threads that begin with, "What I hate about Wes Clark is..." and so forth.

It just isn't the case.

Do you not see the distinction?

[LeftCoast]

56. I hate to tell you this, but...

There are concerted efforts to discredit all the candidates you mention. Things have calmed down a bit recently, but *some* Kerry posters are just as bad as *some* people who favor other candidates.

[saltpoint]

59. I do not agree with you there, LeftCoast. Kerry posters will certainly

leap to the defense of their guy, but the incidences are few when they pick a fight for the sake of the squabble.

We are aware in our own Discussion group of the difference. I don't think you're on target there at all.

[LeftCoast]

61. Nobody ever wants to believe their group is capable of doing what the

other guy does.

I doubt I'll convince you here, but I just ask that you keep your eyes open to the possibility. I have little doubt that if you do, you'll see examples on all sides.

[saltpoint]

63. My eyes will remain open. I'd ask that yours be the same.

There is considerable and consistent chatter in the Kerry group about the distinction between disagreements on positions versus character slams.

Are you trying to persuade me that people don't post against Kerry for the sole purpose of slamming him?

I've got saved threads that will suggest otherwise.

[janx]

108. So true. This isn't about "groups." It's about individuals.

Some are more responsible and considerate than others.

[MH1]

80. NOT the same kind of concerted efforts.

Not even remotely.

[MH1]

81. And frankly, if there are - why are the posts allowed to stay up?

I don't want to see a "Wes Clark is a wuss" post or a "Screw Feingold, he lost me" thread anymore than I want to see the Kerry bashfests.

Why the HELL is it necessary to allow those threads to continue?

You have repeat offenders. Lock the threads and they will get the message. If they don't get the message, you know what to do next.

Saying "Jimmy does it too!" is not a good excuse for an 8 year old and it's not a good excuse for this situation either.

[blm]

58. Heck - I jump in whenever I see unfair attacks on Clark, Kucinich, or

Dean or just about most Dems. And I certainly know that whenever most of us post our disagreements with each other it's because we have them, and not meant to be pure attacks on another.

[saltpoint]

62. I attest to that. blm and other Kerry group folks have risen to the

defense of other candidates all over these boards.

Some as soon as this afternoon and yesterday, in fact.

[The Doctor.]

77. These are not based on "Feelings"...

That there are millions of us who are quite convinced, through empirical evidence, not emotional regret, that the '04 elections were most definitely tampered with.

I know that this is not what the thread is about, but suggesting that Democrats "lost" because they didn't do everythingright is to take vital focus of of a very real issue.

Could the Democrats have done better?

Absolutely.

But focusing on everything they 'didn't' do will undoubtedly result in mindless scrambling for solutions whose pursuit is ultimately futile.

Right now the Dems are like a child beating himself up for losing a rigged contest... except that they are adults with the responsibility to get to the bottom of that rigging.

Self-deprecation and misguided renovation will not help until the more serious problem is addressed. Until then there is no true index of failure for genuine introspection.

[saltpoint]

43. There's no apathy at my house, LeftCoast. None at all. I bet there's

none at yours, either.

The RFK Jr. piece in ROLLING STONE is provocative and informative. I grew up in one of those counties, at least for a while, and I did a little politickin' there, too.

I can vouch for RFK's version of events in one very specific item. If you haven't read it, take babylonsister's advice and grab a copy before they sell out -- it's outstanding.

[Yollam]

130. My feelings exactly.

I'm sure there probably was some fraud, maybe enough to swing Ohio, but using that as a copout, when the Kerry campaign's missteps were so glaringly obvious, even at the time, is a huge mistake.

I remember sending e-mails to his campaign, over and over again telling them basically, "YOU HAVE TO REFUTE the SWIFTY LIES, AND FORCEFULLY". I also begged them to have Kerry clarify his "I voted for it before I voted against it" remark during the debates. That quote was played ad infinitum until the American people thought Kerrry was a flip-flopper. How many Americans, to this day, do you think are aware that there were 2 separate bills - one which gave Iraq rebuilding money in the form of loans, which Kerry voted for, and Bush threatened to VETO, because BUSH INSISTED on a version that would GIVE the money to the Iraqis and put the tab on the deficit, IE OUR GRANDKIDS. Kerry could have scored MAJOR points and killed several birds with one stone by bringing that up. I was furious that he just left it out there.

[Robbien]

5. Being all ramped up and ready for a fight

but then having your candidate say no I give up, is something not easily forgiven. The trust is gone.

[LeftCoast]

8. Well, there's that too.

:)

[ProSense]

12. But that's not really what happened!

Doesn't the point about legal evidence matter?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1344708&mesg_id=1344708

[Robbien]

20. No.

Sorry, but no. When one puts their life on hold for six months to work for something which they feel is vital to their country, but at the very last minute when the big fight was about to start, the candidate says I quit.

Much much later during which time we have to watch these thieves rob my country blind, word comes out Kerry may have had his reasons. Too little and way too late. Again the trust is gone.

[ProSense]

31. So, you believe today the election has been legally proved stolen? n/t

[Robbien]

42. What does that have to do with anything ?

The fight to "legally prove" election results was back in Nov. 04. Legally proving anything today changes nothing about who is sitting in the WH.

[ProSense]

60. It has to do with not having legal evidence

Do you really thing that this evidence was going to show up overnight, in a few days or weeks.

Conyer spent considerable time pulling together the information for his report, which came out in January, stating that:

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

Snip...

As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

Several months from that point, the DNC Report issued its report.


Several months later, the GAO issued it report calling for an investigation.


And now RFK Jr. issues his research calling for an investigation.


Kerry was right to concede, as RFK Jr. points out in reference to the lack of legal evidence.

[Robbien]

67. I see two points here

One: The November election was conceded, therefore valid and final.

Two: There are serious irregularities in voting procedures which should be investigated and corrected.

Proof of the second does not change the first. The election was conceded the morning after, even while the last few votes were being counted. Kerry wouldn't have known if any possible proof was out there in that short amount of time. No one barely had a chance to even look.

[ProSense]

71. And you believe

if the votes turned up that day or the next, conceding would have been legally binding and everyone would say: you won, but you conceded?

The votes weren't there! The evidence wasn't there! Conceding is a courtesy, not a legally binding action. That is why the election is certified in Congress in January.

[Robbien]

76. Yes, a courtesy he gave to the GOP

but to his supporters out in the field amped up for a fight, we get a see ya kid. All promises about fighting to the bitter end just dumped in the garbage along with the rest of the little people who worked to support him.

Once an election is conceded it is final. True not legally binding until January, but once the concession is made the election is over in the minds of the people of the world. If the missing votes were found after that no one would listen no matter how big a stink is made. Just as no one is listening now when election reform is being touted as "stolen election".

[blm]

16. You had a candidate who had NO LEGAL EVIDENCE to pursue a LEGAL CASE.

And that is a big difference.

So you think it's OK for people to attack him EVERY TIME he sticks his neck out no matter what the issue?

If Conyers or Waxman was defeated by chicanery he couldn't legally counter, would all the work done in his career be vanquished from your reservoir of goodwill?

[Robbien]

29. No I do not believe it is okay

This is the first time I've opened my mouth about Kerry since Nov. '04. Usually when coming across a Kerry thread I click hide thread.

Others on DU have the right to support him without my interference. This thread was implying that all Kerry non-supporters were disrupters. I am posting here to say that belief may not be true. I don't post in the Kerry support threads but other disappointed DUers may be doing so. Not all Kerry non-supporters are disrupters I believe.

[blm]

53. It implies nothing of the kind. I clearly stated that the issue is

the RAMPED UP attack threads that appear whenever a major story comes out where Kerry is a key player.

Many nonKerry supporters and I go way back, and I know the difference. Many would agree with me, because the same thing happens when Dean is about to make news, too, or has said something significant.

[Robbien]

83. Now I see what you mean

I've had to click hide thread too many times this afternoon. The treads are popping up all over the place. Don't know what is in them but it does seem a bit much.

[blm]

87. Thanks - I didn't think most DUers would see me as especially sensitive to

Kerry-bashing. heh.... not after the last 4 years here. ;) I have pretty tough skin.

But, sometimes too much is too much to be believed.

[blm]

10. The worst president with the MOST MEDIA PROTECTION IN HISTORY.

And yet Kerry still won - so BushInc had to pull out every trick in the book - suppress voters, purge voter rolls, rig machines.

Why? Because Kerry beat Bush at every matchup - too bad the Dem party infrastructure couldn't handle their job of safeguarding Democratic votes.

[LeftCoast]

17. We were told that Kerry was the only candidate that could beat Bush

And today we have a second-term Bushie. Clearly Kerry has no responsibility for this whatsoever. :sarcasm:

[blm]

23. Straw man. Few here ever said it.. And the point remains that ramped up

attack threads are COINCIDING with important stories.

[saltpoint]

25. I agree with blm -- that's a huge straw man argument. The most

casual wind blows it asunder.

The PG version, though, is bullshit.

Some voters in Iowa, for example, may have considered electability as a prompt, but the data show other incentives. Kerry went to a boatload of small town meetings and talked with people in small groups.

They voted for him.

He placed first in a great majority of primaries.

Those people's votes counted same as yours. You can't speak for their reasons and they can't speak for yours.

Right?

Kerry earned their votes; those voters' votes were valid; the process is legitimate.

[robinlynne]

70. "those voters' votes were valid; the process is legitimate."

I do believe the legitimacy of the process is the bigger picture here, and why we disagree so fervently. the 2004 election was NOT legitimate. I believe that is the most important point of all concerning kerry and 2004. Many of us believe that it should have therefore been openly challenged on November 3rd 2004. Most of us have been challenging it in different ways since then.
RFKs article is finally one that large numbers of people may read.
I am very surprised that we are not 100% united around the notion that laws were broken in this country during that election. and in 2000. and in the last midterm. And that without confronting that issue directly and head on none of our candidates will win any elections becuase they (elections) are currently owned.
history has taught us the dire consequences we can expect, and here they are, in our faces.

[saltpoint]

96. A vacuous read of the circumstances on the ground for Nov. 3, 04.

Vacuous.

[Critters2]

112. He went to small town VFW and American Legion Halls

He rarely held public meetings where just anyone could attend. He kissed up to the veterans, but showed no interest in anyone else. And his campaign did plenty of swiftboating of other Dem candidates.

And his campaign workers were the ones perpetuating the "electability" meme. Which wouldn't bother me so much if he had been electable.

[karynnj]

115. He had plenty of open public meetings

If he met only veterans, he wouldn't have won the primaries. Kerry DID NOT swiftboat other candidates. Do you even know what you are saying? Every candidate projects they can win.

[Critters2]

117. I think only one of us was in Iowa

and I don't think it was you.

[saltpoint]

127. You might just be real surprised where some of us turn up.

[karynnj]

199. You didn't say Iowa in your post

So, if he only saw veterans, how did he get 38% of the vote? Also, others have said that all veterans hate him. Neither that, nor this makes sense.

[saltpoint]

126. Flatly untrue.

You might check the archives of the Des Moines REGISTER if you're this confused about Kerry's campaign schedule in the Iowa caucus.

You have it completely wrong.

[Critters2]

173. I know who he met with in my county

Veterans. Period.

[karynnj]

200. So now, I'm wrong because you meant not "Iowa", but your county!

I did watch the CSPAN coverage of 2 caucuses - Kerry had a lot of supporters who were unlikely to be veterans (women my age - not many women in the 60s were vets)

[Critters2]

103. He was ELECTABLE!

If I had a dime for every time I heard that load of shit!! Next time, lets let the people decide who's electable, instead of telling them beforehand.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

79. So...what's your point?

You didn't answer the op at all.

It is a waste of time and energy to be continually posting threads just to tear down one of the leaders of the Democratic Party.

It's puzzling that a site named "Democratic Underground" allows it to go on.

It's shocking that a moderator steps forward to condone it.

[JanusAscending]

128. I would also call it shocking that a moderator condones it.

What's up with that? First time I can ever remember seeing something like this!!

[gully]

82. That's what "they" said about Gore.

Read the Kennedy article and then say "he lost" without trepidation. I personally can't do that.

[beachmom]

85. YOU may think he is the worst president in US history

And, hell, maybe a LOT of people think he's pretty terrible now (when Katrina exposed him to be incompetent to a LOT more Americans), but let's go back to 2004. The media CONSTANTLY trumped up Bush's great "leadership" how he related to "regular people". Since you live on the Left Coast presumably, maybe where you are it seems obvious that Bush is the worst president, but that certainly wasn't the case where I live in a red state. This country was at WAR, and the only media criticism of Bush was on policy, not personal attacks. And given how many people vote in American Idol (more votes than Bush), obviously, people vote based on persona, NOT issues. Also, do NOT forget the Beslan school massacre that happened in the Fall of 2004. People didn't want to think of Bush being that bad. They were SCARED, and thought "Daddy" would take care of them. Only the studious ones (48% of us, BTW) bothered to learn a few facts.

Kerry gave a superb speech at the Convention and unanimously won all three debates. Did he make mistakes? You bet. But name one campaign where mistakes WEREN'T made. And, of course, had he won, everyone would have forgotten the mistakes.

[MH1]

89. Exactly. I live in a BLUE state and it wasn't at all obvious

where I live.

People were still worshipping at the altar of W in Nov 2004. I never understood why they did it ever, and especially after his administration ignored the warnings about 9/11, but it was there.

[wisteria]

98. Most people did not think Bush was the worse President in 04.

They gave him high marks on security and war issues and that is what he won on. Oh, and I don't think he really would have lost in a fair election. My guess is though, you would find something else to criticize him about.

[TayTay]

162. WE lost against the worst President

The Democratic Party lost, we didn't get enough votes.

We had better start staring that beast in the face and dealing with it or we won't win any more national elections for a long time.

Kerry did extraordinarily well in the core Democratic areas and had approvals well over 50% (some in the high 70%) on core Dem issues like health care, the economy and jobs. Despite this, he lost. He had the money and the grassroots support and yet the Rethugs pulled it out (fraud notwithstanding) because of the security issue.

Kerry was a very good candidate and increased the vote by 6 to 10 million votes over 2000. It was not enough. The discussion DU should be having is how to build on the successes of 2004, like increasing the youth vote and the unbelievably great voter rregistration efforts that brought millions of new people into the process.

Otherwise, no matter who runs next time and gets the nomination, it will not be enough. And that's a plain fact.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. He didn't challenge the election

He will NEVER live that down.

[ProSense]

9. You may be interested in this,

especially the first item:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1344708&mesg_id=1344708

[saltpoint]

30. He was miles behind two months before the 04 Iowa caucus, too,

and he finished a strong first. He garnered 38% of the vote, with Edwards an impressive second at 32%, Dean an energized 16-17%, and Gephardt buried alive with 11%.

Bill Weld was supposed to kick his butt for the Senate seat in Massachusetts, but Kerry dug in and whupped him.

You could ask Bill Weld what kind of campaigner Kerry is.

And don't forget -- there is mounting evidence of felony voter fraud in Ohio and possibly other states. We may be speaking about the winner, not the loser, of the 2004 election.

[saltpoint]

39. I've definitely noticed it. No question. ( REPLY TO OP )

I'm not, truth be told, completely ga-ga over Senator Clinton as our nominee, although if she IS our nominee, she has my vote.

I can build a strong case for her when pressed. I would say her variables in politics are mostly favorable, and that with her high profile, intelligence, education, confidence, and cash and connections, she is definitely going to be a player.

Rush Limbaugh loves to pick on HClinton. To me, it's what I'd expect from a non-journalist, and Rush is even worse than a non-journalist; he's a manipulative asshole non-journalist. That's the worst possible kind.

He picks on HClinton because she likely scares the hell out of him. It's a case of "Let's pick on the smart girl in class. Let's tease her on the playground. Let's taunt her." That's what's going on there.

If the sheep Republicans aren't going to call him on that kind of conduct, I won't have much influence either. But. On my side of the aisle, she should be accorded the same courtesy and consideration that candidates I would prefer more are given. A post on DU might just as easily begin with, "Many Americans may under-appreciate Senator Clinton's education," as "I can't stand Hillary, I hope she doesn't run."

Or, "Please, please, John Kerry, don't run." If a poster likes Feingold's education comments better than Kerry's comments, that's cool. Say so without slamming Kerry. If I think Edwards' grasp of social issues is better than Biden's, I don't need to slam Biden to say so. How about a post in favor of Edwards like "I hope Edwards' social issues command will take him to the White House, but Biden is no slouch at foreign policy and would serve well as Secretary of State in an Edwards administration."

Everybody gets to throw in at one point or another, and the margin for positive response is much greater.

[Critters2]

104. I was in Iowa and watched how his supporters behaved toward other

campaigns. It was despicable. I voted for him because he was the Dem nominee. But I hope he isn't the next time. We need a candidate who really IS electable, not just one who pays people to say he is.

[saltpoint]

125. Well, we'll all just take your word for it, then.

But you know what? I don't think you were the only person in Iowa in January of 04.

It's my best guess that there were any number of others there as well.

Your individual observations are interesting but by no means representative of what happened.

[Critters2]

175. Well, I no for a fact what happened after Iowa

Kerry ran a shitty campaign, let the GOP set his agenda, and lost.

I'd rather not see that happen again.

[blm]

86. To who? 99% of the country EXPECTS a concession when there's no legal case

that can be made to continue.

About 1% of the country has even heard about election fraud.

I just wonder why you all have turned Kerry into a marked man as if he should live in shame for the PERCEPTION that there was a legal case that was NEVER THERE THAT DAY.

[MH1]

90. Yep, even a Dem that I work with said the challenge on Jan 6 was "stupid"

:shrug:

[blm]

92. I completely believe in machine fraud - I just know that there is nothing

that can be done about it AFTER the vote. The machines need securing BEFORE THE VOTE. We need a Dem party infrastructure who attends to that responsiblity in every county.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. I've noticed these days there seems to be a whole lot of trolls and......

.....those who claim to have voting "principles" to uphold. I think the neocons/fundies are on the attack on all fronts including right here at DU in hopes of turning a few of the WH Idiot's tanking numbers around. NOT GOING TO WORK PEOPLE might as well save your time and efforts and head right back.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I've noticed it too.

I blame the 50MM+ idiots who voted for Bush and gave the Republicans enough cover to steal another election. Next time, let's nominate Superman!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. it might be my tin-foil hat is too tight but it is an odd coincidence K&R

[saltpoint]

22. One take is for us to ask if a given candidate -- Kerry or others --

is someone from whom we can learn something.

I don't know anybody more knowledgeable about warfare than Wes Clark. Certainly not the raving psychotic serving as Sec. of Defense now.

Why would John Edwards choose poverty as a theme to build a campaign around? What part of him generates that, when politicos would advise him to pick a sexier topic? I want to learn from the part of him that chose poverty as an imperative theme.

From Kerry, we can learn a thing or two about health care. His health care proposals are astonishingly good. He campaigned on this theme among others, but his plan is the best I've heard. I love Ted Kennedy's work in health care over many years, yes. But I like Kerry's plan a couple notches better.

I'd count Dennis Kucinich as a model of bravery. He has been attacked in Ohio from early mayoral days, and has survived & thrived. A very principled soul on the campaign trail in 04, too.

I'm suspicious of people who reject Russ Feingold because of the divorce record -- it is frankly no one's business, and if the press gave Reagan a free pass they better by god not pick on our pal Russ. He's a hell of a refreshing voice, especially when Arlen Specter is on the floor.

Looking for the positive is not only not difficult, it's extremely easy. There are respectful ways to disagree about one candidate or another's voting record, but the notion of just opening fire on a Democrat is uncalled for. Lieberman is probably the Democrat who gets the most vicious criticism on these boards, not because he's a Democrat, but in the times when he decides not to be. I would have liked to hear his voice raised more strongly against Bush initiatives, and not just the war.

Many of us volunteer. That's what I like to do. I've done it for decades and I expect to die stuffing envelopes when I'm 108. I hope to find on these boards civil acknowledgment that someone I vote for or volunteer for has value in small part because I hold the idea that Kerry's health care plan is a sound one, that Clark knows his stuff on military strategy, that Feingold's election reform initiatives will help us all, and so forth. I'd hope for that as a starting point, and not, "So-and-so sucks, I hate him, I hope he goes to hell."

Them's fightin' words.

Let's paint our collective house blue. A little acknowledgment of strengths in our candidates would go a long way.

[Old and In the Way]

74. Well said Old Crusoe

Just for the record, I don't think you're hardly old at all! :-)

Really, I'm so damn proud of being in a Party that has people with the last name of Kerry, Kennedy(s), Finegold, Edwards, Reid, Kucinich, Clark and many, many others leading the good fight. Been that way since I first started voting. Remember George McGovern? Now there's a guy who really lost an election. But you know what? I was proud as hell that I worked my butt off for him. I can only imagine the melt down some of our Kerry bashers here would have had with George back then...

I guess I could never associate with a Party that values the names of Bush, Reagan, Nixon, DeLay, and Santorum. I'm just not into institutionalized crime, I guess.

[pinto]

78. Good points.

Personally, I think coming out of the 06 elections, we're going to see more advocacy from the State Democratic parties than we have in the past. And if we win the House or Senate, a better national voice in 08 as well. It's going to be fun. I'm focusing on this November, though.

[ThomWV]

24. Because John Kerry bent over in the end

By not challenging the election he lost all respect I had for him.

[blm]

33. Name ANY candidate who would have continued without LEGAL EVIDENCE

to make a LEGAL CASE.

And the subject of the thread was the RAMPED up attacks against Kerry every time an important story came out. Is that something that's fine with you, because Kerry spent 35 years doing NOTHING for this country?

Geez - if you were in the situation where the only case you could make was a legal one, and you had no LEGAL EVIDENCE in hand, would you lose all respect for yourself, too?

[ThomWV]

156. Nothing and no one made him conceed immediately.

Showed him to be a punk in my opnion.

There was plenty of evidence, all he had to do was wait a week for it to be gathered. One single solitary fucking week. We would not be in the mess we are today if he hadn't punked out. One fucking week, would have been plenty. There were litterly millions of people who were more than willing to assist him. Still, he punked out.

I do not want a man like that for my President.

Al Gore took his all the way to the Supreme Court by contrast, and what was it, a month and a half? He stuck to his guns. That is the way any man worth the office would approach it.

[blm]

171. Gore had the MATH On his side - you're comparing 2 completely different

circumstances.

You would have to believe that Gore would continue if he was down by 130,000 votes and down by the PERCEIVED POPULAR vote by 3 million.

You would also be assuming that Kerry would NOT continue if he was down by 1500 and HAD the perceived popular vote by half a milliion.

Do you really consider both the same - there was NO MATH that gave Kerry the cover it gave Gore to continue, even for a week. And the problem with the machines is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE in them AFTER the vote. That's why claiming the could get the evidence needed is absurd.

Kennedy even states that there was no legal evidence available to continue when Kerry conceded.

And what did Clinton and Gore's CLOSING OF THE BOOKS on IranContra, BCCI and their coverup of CIA drugrunning show you? That when they HAD the power they chose to let BushInc off the hook. Kerry has proved he will OPEN THE BOOKS and be an anti-corruption, open government president - YOU are the one who supports the punks who covered up for BushInc in the first place.

[saltpoint]

66. Like a lightswitch deal? I don't think it's that simple.

Kerry's an attorney. He knew what he had to have IN HAND if he was going to make a legal challenge.

It was not IN HAND. Courts insist on evidence. If you don't have evidence, your case is cooked.

What would you have had him do?

Go into court without evidence? That doesn't sound like something an attorney would do.

[Rex]

35. No, nothing new as a matter of fact the big three here that Dems

love attacking are - Hillary, Kerry and Gore. Well I say Dems, in truth all three have done things in the past to piss me off. Not enough to start a flame thread, I just don't find it to be productive with my time (or anyone else).

We need to have solidarity right now more than ever.

[CatWoman]

36. It also started when he challenged the Swift Boaters.

[blm]

54. oops - how could I have forgotten that one? Thanks.

.

[Blaukraut]

45. you're not imagining things

There is a clear and discernible pattern at hand. Yes, not every poster who does not support JK is a disruptor. Nobody is saying that, either. There is however a certain group that is making a concerted effort to post anti-Kerry flame threads and post in positive Kerry threads, turning them into flame wars that need to be locked. It has become more pronounced and transparent - almost desperate - in the last two months.

[rosesaylavee]

64. Agreed.

There are some candidates spoken of glowingly on DU that I would not support by campaigning for or vote for in 2008 but I haven't trashed the candidates because of the possibility of their run or subsequently trashed their supporters. I think some of these discussion threads are very informative - for instance, I have learned a lot about Clarke and Feingold that I hadn't known before. I admire both men and am grateful for their devotion and dedication to their work on our behalf.

As for why there seem to be an inordinate amount of Kerry-bashers on DU - it may be that 1.) some are still so disappointed by the 2004 loss that they still, after all this time, can't look at it rationally as a legal issue or 2.) because of time some personally spent and feel was lost on the Kerry/Edwards campaign or 3.) because of adverse experiences caused by this insane 2nd * term on their lives or 4.) none of the above and they are just personally attached to disrupting discussions as bloodsport.

I think there are more 1-3s than 4s...

For the record, I lean toward Kerry in 2008 and would welcome a run by Gore again - both gentlemen, IMHO, are great Americans and were great candidates in 00 and 04 and were both the victims of an extraordinary illegal election maneuvers by the * minions ... Our Democracy, or what is left of it, hinges on whether we can fix the election problem nationally.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

72. Expression Of An Opinion, Ma'am, Is Not Bias

Nor criticizing the poor performance of a particular Democrat is not "trashing" that Democrat. Sen. Kerry's campaign certainly made some errors; it would baffle my imagination to consider how a serious objection could be made to that statement. It is the essence of contructive criticism to point out errors and insufficiencies in past performance: how can anything be learnt, and repeating mistakes avoided in future, otherwise?

[ProSense]

73. It's not constructive to promote distortion of the facts! n/t

[Guaranteed]

93. Kerry supporters keep responding with exactly that.

But saying what HAPPENED is not distorting the facts.

[ProSense]

107. And what happened? Do you know what I'm talking about? n/t

[Guaranteed]

138. Your response doesn't make sense.

People are talking about what happened during the campaign, and the image of Kerry that was created. It happened.

Kerry supporters keep attacking people for "distorting the facts," but hardly anyone here is even talking about his IWR vote anymore. You're not responding to the point being made.

You're trying to blame everyone else for Kerry's image.

[ProSense]

154. You don't make sense!

People talking? People are distorting what happened during the campaign to create an image that didn't exist. There is plenty of talk about the IWR vote, in this thread and others. Pay attention!

[saltpoint]

97. But when the pen making said criticisms is poison-tipped,

the agenda is suspect.

The issue is tone, not content.

Do you make the distinction between contructive critism, even if firmly noted, or do you favor just opening fire on a given candidate.

I would call the later option trashing, without a doubt.

I would also think a Mod would insist on the distinction.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

202. kick

[JackDragna]

75. Get done?

This is an internet message board. What, exactly, gets done here? Kerry deserves his criticism. It's good he's advocating for the right things, but he's doing it when he's essentially powerless. I much would've preferred he make a stink over having the election stolen.

[sweetheart]

88. what was that about hats? (nt)

[undeterred]

94. Its the circular firing squad

I love John Kerry and would love to see him inaugurated.

[LibertyorDeath]

95. We have a substantial # of freeper trolls here,many have over a 1000 posts

They are well organized and they help each other out in threads

I know the (well organized) part is hard to believe considering
they are closed minded to the point of mental deficiency
but none the less it's true.

When you see them ALERT on their fucking asses!

[hyphenate]

99. I wholeheartedly agree with you

It's like the sharks have a feeding frenzy when Kerry's name is mentioned.

[wisteria]

100. This is not a coincidence. It is done without skipping a beat.

It is a damn shame that one of the most honest, hardworking, concerned, opened minded and "for the people" politicians we have,-Senator Kerry- gets treated like the enemy every time he demonstrates he is a true leader and does what others don't have the guts to do.
It make me appreciate him even more.

[spacelady]

101. It doesn't happen to just Kerry, It Has been happening since

Ronald Reagan got elected on the backs of the Iranian hostages. Some may say before, but that's when it became blatant & widespread.

[upi402]

105. myself; I only bash the idea of Kerry being our next nominee

That's the nut of my feelings of opposition to him. I wish he would have stood against NAFTA, and fought for Ohio -WHICH EVEN I KNEW WAS MESSED UP- but all in all, he is a hero of mine.

[Truthiness Inspector]

121. Senator Kerry is highly decorated

He has three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star.

He is clearly a war hero. Not many people can make that claim, and he did it in four months. He was and is a true warrior.

[dailykoff]

122. Kerry has a lot of enemies, who have a lot of mouthpieces,

who have a lot of gullible readers who emulate them.

:shrug:

[txb]

129. even the moderates in the press are down on kerry....

face it, he is a LOSING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

in American politics, there is *nowhere* to go from that position.

yes, kerry mopped-up the debates with *'s face.

but he is remembered as having LOST to BUSH by the vast majority of Americans, millions of other activist-democrats who toiled in the stolen election of 2004 have very much soured on Kerry, and waiting in the wings is the GOP who is just *salivating* at the notion of facing John Kerry again and being able to swiftboat him this time just by insinuating.

does that sound ELECTABLE to you?!?

John Kerry is a hero, an excellent Senator, and a wonderful voice for the left.

But due to circumstances beyond his control, in most cases, everyone is coming to the realization that he is simply OLD BAGGAGE and is not the right figure to LEAD the democratic party in 2008.

his year was 2004, and *apparently* that didn't work out for him.

i think he was robbed, but regardless.....his time has PASSED.

[wisteria]

131. I see a lot of mention of him and he is gaining a lot of new respect.

The media was never that kind to him, but out among the general public he is doing just fine. I get positive feedback whenever I mention him and it is unsolicited.I have a fairly inconspicuous button I have placed on my purse that reads Kerry 2008 and people respond to it.I live in a portion of PA that is conservative and he still is respected even here.Most people realize they made a mistake voting for Bush and only did so because they were frighten into doing so. The good Senator also has a large amount of support on his from his e-mail list and a lot of devoted fan here at DU.
Frankly, if anyone can pull off a win out of the last loss he can. I think his time is 2008. He is the leader we will need in 2008.
The old tricks won't work and it is only the Washington insiders that seem to harbor the views you have of him being a has been.
As for the GOP, I get the opposite impression, they seem to panic when Senator Kerry's name is brought up.
Oh, and who are these people who are coming to realize that he is as you put it, "old baggage"?

Oh, by the way, I toiled and worked my finger to the bone for him, I donated and I continue to donate money to him. I wouldn't mind doing it again.
Why do you find it necessary to be so negative,who are you trying to convince? He should have an opportunity to run again if he wants to. I am willing to let the "real" public decide his future.And you are correct in stating that he is a wonderful Senator and a voice for the left.

Oh, by the way, who are you working for? You seem to have so much inside and media information- all of it negative.

[txb]

134. just stating the obvious:americans don't embrace failed pres candidates

kerry will continue to be a force in the senate.
he may even get to shape the nature of the debate in the presidential race amongst the democrats.
but the democratic party needs a new face, a strong face, to lead them in 2008.
if any former candidate should run, i think it should be GORE. he has certainly improved his standing in the last 5 and a half years and the republicans have only looked worse.

when the american people go into the ballot box on election 2008, they are not going to be voting AGAINST george bush. they will be VOTING FOR A NEW PRESIDENT.
i trust that the democratic party wont be stupid enough to put the failed candidate of 2004 in front of an electorate looking for a NEW LEADER.

and as far as "where i work" - you can remove you tin hat because i don't work for the press, i'll be working for the registrar of voters for the next two days.

i understand the good reception you must get with your Kerry 2008 button.
just think about the much warmer reception once the campaign has begun and a NEW, FRESH, DEMOCRATIC FACE has come to the forefront and ENERGIZED not only the party, but the NATION!
that will be a button that ALL AMERICA will wear with pride.

thank you for your continued good service Senator Kerry, but please step aside and allow the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY take charge of taking back the whitehouse in 2008!

[dailykoff]

135. Right, Kerry the has-been.

That's what all the pundits were saying before Iowa, as I recall.

p.s. and no amount of sour grapes will persuade me that the Iowa caucus was "stolen."

[txb]

136. kerry wasn't even a blip on the map for most americans during IOWA

i think everyone will agree that there has been ALOT OF WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE
(i.e. lost presidential election) since then.....

voices calling Kerry a has-been NOW are correct.

voices saying he was a has-been in IOWA thought he was done among democrats, he showed them!

however, JOHN KERRY has been branded as a "failed presidential candidate" by MILLIONS OF AMERICANS who didn't know him from adam back in the Iowa caucus.

he is a great voice & activist for the party, much like TED KENNEDY,

but his time as a national candidate are LONG GONE.

[dailykoff]

137. I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Kerry won in 2004 and I'm sure there are plenty of people who didn't vote for him who are starting to wish they did. Wait til gas hits 5 bucks a gallon.

[txb]

139. again, they will be electing a NEW president not voting on *

and besides, by THAT time a much more charismatic candidate without all the negative baggage will have made themselves known......so this question is likely moot at that time.

once the presidential campaign actually begins, and america begins to think about WHO SHOULD FOLLOW BUSH....they will not be looking backward with rose colored glasses at the failed candidate of 2004.

there will be too many vibrant candidates of 2008 to bother with John Kerry.

[dailykoff]

140. Sorry, there are no "charismatic" GOP candidates

and no honest ones, either.

Oh and welcome to DU. :eyes:

[txb]

141. no, but many more charismatic dems than sen. stiff kerry n/t

[dailykoff]

142. A lot of people like his style.

Maybe some don't, but I happen to think it's not a deal breaker. They'll vote for him anyay just like they did in '04.

[txb]

147. "vote for him anyway" -motto of champions?? c'mon!

there are many of us who worked long & hard on election 2008 and feel abandoned by KERRY.
i'm not going to vote for him, from the looks of countless posts around this hardcore democratic activist site--others share my feelings about Kerry's baggage, his actions regarding the Election Fraud of 2004, and are going to join me in not supporting him in 2008.

so his lukewarm reception among democratic activists coupled with his perception among the general public as a failed candidate from a previous election....i really don't think the democratic party would be stupid enough to give KERRY the nomination.

i understand you are very optimistic regarding KERRY, i just don't think you are grasping how much is working AGAINST him in this election.

once the campaign begins and democratic candidates with charisma surface....KERRY will be a footnote to Election 2008.

trust me. having 'almost' won in 2004 and bush in the dumps politically has NO BEARING on the 2008 race.

kerry is in for a BIG surprise if he thinks differently.

go on, go ahead and tell me that it is *I* who is awaiting the 'big surprise', but i'm afraid KERRY has no more surprises left.

and the party shouldn't be waiting for him...move on, move upward.
no kerry in 2008

[dailykoff]

149. I think you're underestimating the electorate.

Some will claim to be turned off by Kerry's style and vote GOP. But the truth is they wouldn't vote for ANY Dem.

As for actual Dems, the '04 primaries say it all. :shrug:

[txb]

151. "as for actual Dems" --- ARE YOU BLIND?

haven't you noticed the many, many voices of INVOLVED, COMMITTED, and *ANGRY* Democrats, like myself, who are NOT GOING TO SUPPORT JOHN KERRY?

if you think the upcoming presidential primaries will be ANYTHING like the 2004 Primaries after KERRY ABANDONED the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and allowed GWB to STEAL THE ELECTION-uncontested-, you are living in quite a fantasy land.

Kerry's got a major fight on his hands for the nomination, for you to think it to roll along just like 2004 is crazy....

[dailykoff]

152. As wisteria said all great men have enemies.

So vote for Jeb and Condi, it's a free country. :shrug:

[txb]

153. Vote for Jeb & Condi? you're nuts. I'll be voting for the Democratic

..nominee, which will certainly NOT be John Kerry.

why the hell would I vote for a GOP?
i was raised a democrat and voted for Clinton twice, Gore once, and Kerry once.

its funny you are trying to blow me off as a right winger.....if Kerry is as stupid as you are acting and IGNORES the activist/left wing of the party that is SICK of looking at him after the debacle of Election 2004....he'll be out of the race even sooner than anticipated.

besides, it'll be mccain (covert neo_con) running on the side of evil.

that's why the democrats need a NEW & FRESH candidate.
Kerry vs. McCain is a GOP WET DREAM.

[ProSense]

155. Who did you vote for in 2004? I asked before, why not answer? n/t

[txb]

157. read the msg, idiot....i voted for Kerry. ONCE. n/t

[ProSense]

159. Sorry, I missed that! I guess I can call you an idiot for

having voted for someone you continue to refer to using pejorative terms such as a "loser." Idiot!

[txb]

161. exactly! that is why myself and millions of others will NOT

...vote for Kerry again.

fool us once, shame on you.

millions of devoted democratic activists will not be giving KERRY the opportunity to 'fool us again'.

Kerry is in our rear-view mirror.

its better for everyone this way.

[ProSense]

163. Millions of Democrats will vote for Kerry if he get the nomination. n/t

[txb]

164. luckily Dems are smart enough NOT to nominate a LOSER & a WIMP n/t

[ProSense]

166. If Kerry gets the nomination, millions of Democrats will vote for him n/t

[txb]

167. quit plugging your fingers in your ears and jumping up and down..

...saying millions of dems will vote for Kerry if he gets nominated.

Millions of Dems would vote for Pee Wee Herman if he got nominated.

sorry for the rough analogy...but many of us can agree that the Dems should do better for the US in 2008 than either Pee Wee OR the greatest WIMP of them all...JOHN KERRY.

[ProSense]

168. If nominated, Kerry will get millions of votes. Don't be annoyed! n/t

[txb]

169. welcome to my ignore list...carry on with your one person Kerry rally n/t

[ProSense]

170. Please hide positive Kerry threads too. Continue in denial! n/t

[wisteria]

146. But, actually he isn't still. That is mostly Right wing talk..

Kerry is actually very personable and friendly and funny.

[Critters2]

174. And ran a shitty campaign

No reason to think he won't do that again. His time has come and gone.

[ProSense]

177. Shitty? That's your opinion!

Kerry in fact did connect to voters and even the polls after the debates online and offline indicated that Kerry’s message resonated with many. He was leading Bush after the convention, which is why the Liars kick in. He did get a record 59 million votes!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E10FC39580C758CDDA80994DC404482

Mr. Kerry's confidants pointed to his e-mail list of 2.6 million supporters - which helped him raise more than $249 million, a record for a presidential challenger - as a major asset that Mr. Kerry could harness to project his influence well beyond the Senate chamber, and not just in financial terms. They said one option would be to set up a new organization the way Howard Dean did with his political action group, Democracy for America, after his defeat in the Democratic primaries.

07/31/2004
Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush
BY CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY / STAFF WRITER

It was a day for diehards.

Whether they were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, determined protesters or curiosity seekers who simply wanted to witness history, the estimated 17,000 people who turned out to see presidential nominee John Kerry in Scranton on Friday all shared one common trait.
Stamina.

Brutal humidity, a savage sun and scarce water ended the day early for some. Those who managed to stick around until the end, however, said it was worth every sweaty, sticky second.

The crowd was thick with veterans, a sign of the rich history of military service in the region and the strong connection Mr. Kerry has established with veterans. Many had high praise for the candidate's service in Vietnam. Most offered harsh criticism of President Bush, who faces lingering questions about his National Guard service.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

In the last two campaigns, the parties divided the electoral map almost exactly in half. In 2000, George W. Bush won the second-narrowest Electoral College victory since 1800. In 2004, Bush won a smaller share of Electoral College votes than any reelected president except Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook7may07,1,3221992.column?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Critters2]

179. He let the GOP set his agenda

And none of this matters to me anyway. I WILL NOT support ANYONE who voted for the IWR--not Kerry, not Hillary, no one!! They are responsible for this war. They don't deserve to be in the White House!

[ProSense]

181. Did you vote for anyone who supported the IWR before?

The vote occurred in 2002 and the election in 2004. If you voted for Kerry, what the hell would have caused you to vote for him when you believed he supported the illegal war? What exactly were you voting for, more of the same? Did you hate Kerry from 2002 until 2004, then decided to forgive him on Election Day and vote for him, then go back to being unable to forgive him?

By this logic you supported the war when you voted, but don't now. This is a bullshit excuse for an ulterior motive!

Unlike this BS logic, Kerry never voted for war and never supported war. People choose to mis-characterize the resolution as a vote for war.


If you're interested you can read his speech to know why he voted the way he did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2661931&mesg_id=2661931

It was designed to hold Bush accountable. This is Bush's illegal war. No amount of twisting is going to make this the Democrats' fault, not even in part!

[Critters2]

182. He most certainly voted for war

and for an unconstitutional resolution. A man who does not know the Constitution should NOT be president!

If he wasn't bright enough to know that the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION was a RESOLUTION to fight a WAR in IRAQ, he's not as smart as my beagle. That would be another reason NOT to vote for him.

[ProSense]

188. Answer the question: Did you vote for anyone who supported the IWR before?

[Critters2]

190. Yes, I regret it, and I won't do it again

Nominate Kerry, and I vote Green. It's time for this party to grow a pair.

[ProSense]

192. Regrets! So this isn't true is it!

I WILL NOT support ANYONE who voted for the IWR--not Kerry, not Hillary, no one!! They are responsible for this war.

You maintain that the IWR was a vote for war, but you voted for someone you believe supported the war. By your logic, your vote was a vote to support war!

[Critters2]

193. The war had already started when I voted for the nimrod the party

nominated. I called my members of Congress and asked them not to vote for the IWR. But Kerry and others did. Thanks to him, we were at war by the time I ever had the opportunity to vote for or against him.

Go ahead, nominate the war-monger. I'll vote Green.

[ProSense]

195. You had the option

to vote Green in 2004. Why did you vote for Kerry if you believed he was for war?

[Critters2]

196. My vote isn't the issue

I threw it away on a candidate who ran a shitty campaign, after voting to start an illegal war. Well, he voted against the war, after he voted for it :eyes:

If you think attacking me is going to move me to your position, to supporting your candidate, you should sign up for Kerry's campaign. But do it for the primaries, so he'll be completely out of the picture by the General.

Keep on spinnin'!

[ProSense]

197. Yes it is:

Youu were for an IWR supporter, before you were against IWR supporter!

[Critters2]

198. Again, if this is the way you think you can win hearts and minds

Have at it. I just see you as an unthinking Kerry-bot. You're not persuading me. If you're a supporter of the junior senator from Massachusetts, that should be your goal. You Kerry types really don't know thing one about running a campaign, do you?

Keep treating me like shit. That'll bring me to your side

Moran.

[wisteria]

145. Oh, and what crystal ball have you been reading? n/t

[wisteria]

144. Stop the patronizing bullsh*t. You know no more that me about

what is to be. A fresh face- Gore- a fresh face. And to suggest that he hasn't been running against Bush all this time with all his comments about the administration.
Kerry has been critical of Bush, but he has also put forth new ideas. I am not stupid, I do realize that Bush will not be the candidate in 2008. However, the mess he leaves behind will be the subject of debate and Kerry can do very well on this level.
We don't need a fresh face in 2008 we need knowledge and skill. We need a diplomat.

Frankly, a fresh face will offer up nothing of value in 08. Energize us? Please, I want action not rhetoric. I don't want a cookie cutter DLC candidate.
And to suggest I step aside because I continue to support a viable 2008 candidate whom you don't care for is outrageous. Let me tell you, in the fashion of the man I support, I don't go anywhere quietly and I step aside for no one -especially not for arrogant know it alls like yourself. I'll continue to fight for Senator Kerry's right to run again and for a true new direction for our Party. Step aside, because we are coming on through.

[txb]

150. you don't want a "cookie cutter candidate" and neither does

the American people. that is why they will resist (with a sigh) the nomination of John "been there, seen that" Kerry. they will have plenty of baggage from campaign 1 running through their heads and the race will quickly degenerate into Kerry 'take 2'.

i hope that the democrats aren't stupid enough to put themselves in this position and i trust that once the primaries and caucus get underway, John Kerry will be making an early exit.

(not as early as he should since he's got all that cash that he DIDN'T spend on fighting election theft, but he'll be endorsing a new candidate for president in 2008 for certain)

america doesn't want to listen to john kerry lecture them again about 'his plan'....it is someone else's turn.

just my opinion, naturally, best of luck in the primaries.

[Critters2]

178. Yeah, he really stood up against the IWR

Pretty damned courageous!! Oh, wait...he caved on that, didn't he? But he's sorry about it now.
Maybe he can pay back some of the billions we've wasted in Iraq, fighting this war he supported.

:eyes:

[July]

158. Two words: Dick Nixon. nt

[NYCGirl]

172. Two words: Adlai Stevenson. NT

[wisteria]

176. You can't throw out examples without noting the similarities

as well as the differences. In this case the only common thread is that Stevenson ran two times and lost. After that your comparison falls apart. Stevenson ran against Eisenhower two times the second time with no more than Eisenhower's health being the issue. Stevenson was also divorced- a very big deal back in the late fifties-sixties.Their are other differences, but these should do for now.
I contend, it depends on the man and the times.
One could also claim that VP Gore ran and lost at least once before giving it a shot again. He tried two times for the Presidency if I recall correctly- once in the primaries and lost out and once in the general election. If he ran this time, it would be his third attempt.

[NYCGirl]

184. Once in the primaries doesn't count. And the similarity between

Stevenson and Kerry is that Stevenson ran in two consecutive races.

[wisteria]

201. It is still trying for the Presidency twice- no big deal to me, but

Kerry ran in one Presidential Primary and won it to advance to the general election. As I said, let everyone run if they choose to-no big deal to me.
And yes, the one "similarity" between Stevenson and Kerry, if Kerry should to decide to run, is two consecutive races. One similarity and many un-similar things between the both men and their races. Just because it didn't work out for Stevenson, doesn't mean the same results are guaranteed for Kerry.

[wisteria]

132. All great men have enemies. You can not be successful without

making some of them for one reason or another. You forget though that he has a lot of friends.

[dailykoff]

133. True, except. . . .

I haven't forgotten! :grouphug:

[wisteria]

148. Good, I am happy to know this! n/t

[Laurab]

180. I noticed it too

it doesn't matter if the falsehoods are countered, as the same people will say the same things in each and every thread. I noticed a long time ago that some people don't want to hear facts, they just want to go along with the same complaint, and they don't WANT to have it debunked. I basically just try to ignore the threads now, because I'm not sure it will ever stop.

This thread is a perfect example. Mention the name, and it starts no matter WHAT the thread is about, if he's involved. Anyway, it's not a coincidence, but bottom line is "they've made up their minds, don't confuse them with facts".