Why I will not vote for Kerry in 2008

[LibraLiz1973]

I supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004. I worked rallies, did phone calls, donated time & as much money as I legally could, canvassed neighborhoods, hung up signs & worked the polls on Election Day.

In all honesty, I always preferred Edwards. I had trouble connecting with Kerry. Still, I supported the ticket because I loathe George Bush.

The following is a list of my opinions about Kerry- reflections on the 2004 election & thoughts about his future candidacy.

(1) During the election I was very disappointed that Kerry kept kid gloves on where Bush was concerned. Bush’s jugular was totally exposed- and Kerry never swept in for the “kill”. I could not understand why Kerry wasn’t taking a firmer stand on the whole Iraq War. He absolutely DID waffle on his Iraq vote and it was embarrassing. Every time I heard him defend the vote I would cringe. He could not even say in plain terms that IF HE KNEW THEN WHAT HE KNOWS NOW he would not have voted to go. He stuck by that ridiculous vote instead of pointing out time and again that Bush & his cronies lied to the entire country. THAT should have been the focus- not Kerry’s “flip-flopping” on the vote. The press ran with that and made him look like a fool. Remember- a great many people in this country decide who they will vote for based on 45 second news stories. Of course that is not the right way to choose a candidate but it IS what happens. Kerry wasn’t kicking ass and taking names and it made people who don’t follow a bouncing ball (or even an unmoving ball) think he didn’t know what he was talking about. How many times did you see the commercial with this tagline “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it”? Here is an example of the kind of news stories the general public was seeing.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml


(2) Next, let’s discuss the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Those crony, lying pieces of crap somehow managed to get hour upon hour of coverage…… and Kerry hardly fought back. I was so angry at that point I was on fire. They were everywhere! Once again, this was a situation where Kerry actually had firm footing. And yet… the Kerry campaign didn’t fight back as hard as you would have expected. So once again, the average American was led to believe he was a liar. PLEASE!! The man was a decorated Veteran- and yet, his reputation was being annihilated by a bunch of liars!!


(3) Mary Beth Cahill. WHAT WAS HE THINKING? That woman had NO BUSINESS running a Presidential campaign- much less that particular campaign. Bush was in bed with KKKarl and Karen Hughes- not to mention Cheney. These people are vulgar, viscous liars.. and Mary Beth did NOTHING to fight back. I was almost apoplectic when Karl, Karen and Dan Hughes came off that plane dressed as duck hunters to make fun of Kerry. Once again, guess what got tons of coverage? Meanwhile the Kerry campaign rolled on and tried to take the high road. Here’s the thing. With Bushco there WAS NO HIGH ROAD!! The choice was to fight like hell or go down in flames. When Paul Begala, James Carville and BILL CLINTON tried to tell Kerry what the problems were, he forwarded their concerns to Mary Beth and she did NOTHING. Democrats everywhere were flipping out and still…. nada


(4) Kerry marginalized John Edwards because Edwards was the more “people friendly” of the two. That was a HUGE mistake. I thought it showed lack of vision.

(5) The concession. Kerry went up against the biggest bunch of crooks and liars ever. He knew who he was up against when he threw his hat into the ring. He promised us that each vote would be counted. We all were positive we wouldn’t see a repeat of 2000. And then it came down to it… and he folded like a cheap accordion. All the exit polls that night were so strong for Kerry. Bush was going to get stomped. Suddenly things got ugly. The next thing you knew Kerry was conceding. Do I think he would have won? Perhaps not. But do I believe 1,000% that there were voting irregularities galore? You bet. I think the issue needed to be pushed a bit more.

(6) Yes, Kerry has done good work in the Senate. I’m not debating that. Yes, he is an honorable man. But the thing he is not is Presidential. He believed that by staying above the fray of BS the Bushies laid over the country he would win. A smarter, stronger man would have known that every time he didn’t fight back they would just pile more filth on. Come on! These bastards have sent thousands of soldiers to their deaths in a war that has no meaning. They have lied, cheated and stolen over and over again. They bent this country over and delivered a DFP in the 2000 election. Who here didn’t think they would do it again? Who didn’t think they would make Kerry out to be the left hand of satan? WE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT BACK HARDER.

In the end, Kerry let down a lot of people. I do not think he will ever win a primary. He can be as strong as he wants NOW- but he wasn’t strong during the election. The Repubs have now proven they will stop at NOTHING to win for 2 elections in a row. Do you think the next election will be better?

Do we really need to rehash 2004? Are you prepared for Swift Boat Part 2? Are you ready for the purple heart band-aids at the Repug convention? They were as ruthless and as obnoxious as possible. They took a war hero and made him sound like a child killer. Those stories were awful. I, for one, can never go back there. I will not vote for John Kerry. If he is the candidate, count me out. I’d rather not vote than cast a vote for someone who didn’t live up to his promises.

I am not trying to alienate any Kerry voters. I’m not trying to be rude. I am just putting my opinion out there. I don’t want this thread to be divisive and hateful. Expressing opinions can be healthy- it doesn’t have to be blood sport. You don’t have to agree with me… it is your right and I totally respect that. This is just MY opinion

[msongs]

1. do you believe people can learn from their mistakes?

I too was incensed to find Kerry had already conceded BEFORE we even woke up here in California the day after. what a blow that was, for I too believed his claims to slug it out until all the votes were counted.


Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
put your pics on shirts!

[LibraLiz1973]

12. I agree that people can learn from their mistakes

On both sides. I feel I learned a valuable lesson about Kerry. As good a man as he was (and is) he wasn't the candidate that was needed. (again, IMHO)

[dysfunctional press]

66. hopefully, all the people who voted for kerry in '04 will-

and keep his ass on the sidelines in 2008.

[nashville_brook]

112. yeah, that's why i'd vote for gore before kerry.

maybe it's splitting hairs, but that's just where i'm at.

[cry baby]

2. A well thought out arguement...

however, what if Kerry is the candidate for the Dems in 08? Will you vote for him then or will you vote for a third party?

[LibraLiz1973]

13. I will not vote for him

a third party is of course an option-but it would have to be an amazing candidate.
In all honesty, I feel like the repubs will play dirty again. They are cocky now because they have done it two elections in a row and have gotten away with it. My feeling is if I voted for Kerry it wouldn't end up counting anyway because they will steal it & he wont fight.

[Mass]

15. Ok, happy you made it clear you would prefer a Republican.

[LibraLiz1973]

23. Way to jump to the worst possible conclusion

From the tone of this post I will assume you are trying to start an argument.

[closeupready]

27. Yeah, sounds like it to me, too.

eom

[dysfunctional press]

69. she made it clear that she wants the Democrats to run a better candidate.

me too.
i won't vote for kerry- he had his shot...move over and let someone else try.

[LibraLiz1973]

153. That's exactly right

I want the democrats to run a better, more viable candidate. In my heart of hearts I genuinely don't believe Kerry has a hope in hell of winning the Presidency. I really don't. I also don't think Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean have a shot either.
I could be wrong- god knows it happens alot!- but, I really dont think so.

[blm]

168. Instead of fixing the REAL PROBLEM - the lame INFRASTRUCTURE that actually

was responsible for both Gore and Kerry losing the votes that were actually cast for them.

The Dem party had a DUTY to its voters and to ALL its camdidates - - THEY failed to secure the machines and the votes on so many levels.

But, it's really smart of you all to DISTRACT from the REAL problems by heaping all the blame on Kerry - that way NOTHING will be changed by the same folks who use your argument as a crutch.

[sandrakae]

169. There is no better candidate. Who has more experience than John Kerry?

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. pathetic

Advocate against the Democratic party somewhere else.

[LibraLiz1973]

46. "Advocate against the Democratic Party"

Yep, you caught me. That's just what I was doing.

You've got ALOT of rage in you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. People who threaten to vote third party don't deserve respect.

[LibraLiz1973]

65. Your criteria for deserving respect is sadly lacking

Should I respect you? Your getting hysterical and attacking me.... FOR NO REASON. Your babbling one outlandish thing after another and being as rude, obnoxious and confrontational as possible.

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Just stop pretending you started this thread with innocent intentions

"Oh, it's a pure coincidence that I chose to time this thread with the appearance of Kerry receiving accolades in the news."

Like I said, I don't believe in coincidences. This thread is flamebait, pure and simple - and no, if you are seriously implying that you would NOT vote for the Democrat in 2008, you don't deserve respect. I don't care if the Democratic candidate is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton - anyone who does not vote Dem effectively votes for the Republican.

Tell me all about your faux principles when we have President George Allen or Jeb Bush.

[LibraLiz1973]

79. Umm. Ok.

I can only say so many times that is NOT why I started this thread. I started the thread because of the Kerry in 2008 thread.
You can read whatever you want into everything I say- because you seem unable to take things at face value. If I was pissed about Kerry getting coverage, or something he said, I would SAY that. I don't b.s. and hide behind lies and half truths.

I don't have faux principles. Is it truly necessary to be so rude? Does it make you feel better? How do you think what your doing is helping John Kerry? IMHO you are coming off as unstable as a Michele Malkin or an Ann Coulter. We DISAGREE. Don't make it into world war 3. If you think that foaming at the mouth and screaming at people with differing opinions than yours is healthy,then perhaps you should register as a republican. They love to channel angry people into republican pitt bulls.

[AllNamesHaveBeenUsed]

171. Sigh...

Few folks have the guts to vote their conscience over party. This is why we are stuck with a two-party system. I, for one, am tired of having to hold my nose while casting my vote. I'm not criticizing... I, too, vote straight ticket.

[bvar22]

56. You are either With us....

...or you're with the terrorists!!!!!

/sarcasm

[Patchuli]

99. This is one of those times

when it is important to hold your nose and vote Dem anyway because Repubs have already ruined everthing. Just because they seem to campaign better than Dems doesn't mean they know how to actually govern, which is readily apparent to anyone with a brain, eyes, ears and an attention span. I think we still need to vote against the GOP no matter who is running.

I do agree with a lot of what you say though. I was mad as hell for Kerry's conceding before the votes were authenticated, especially in light of the exit polls which are rarely wrong.

I personally want AL GORE! I know he'd fight longer this time with everything we all know now about the BFEE and the GOP.

[blm]

3. A follower of editted news - is there a candidate who CANNOT be editted

down? Does any Democrat have control of newsroom editting rooms?

Check the research forum - Kerry answered the swifts ALOT more than most people know - the media muted it.

And Kerry DID win - he performed SO well, that BushInc had to work overtime and pull out all the stops to suppress the vote, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country to stay in power.

If Kerry had been a lesser candidate, they wouldn't have had to bother.

Here's the swift response you didn't see - the links in the research forum are good if you want to read them in total

Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 08:09 PM by blm

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)
May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)
May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)
May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)
May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).
Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.
Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)
Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)
Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)
Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)
Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)
Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)
Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.
Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)
Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)
August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)
August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)
Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)
Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)
References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.
On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.
Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.
But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.
Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.
As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.
Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."
I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.
And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.
John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....

Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...

Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.
"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.
"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /
http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php
August 5, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE
Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Dear Station Manager:
We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.
In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).
Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).
The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.
Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).
Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.
Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).
Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.
Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.
Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003
General Counsel
Democratic National Committee

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...

From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:
Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.
* * *
In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).
* * *
On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.
* * *
From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:
KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...
Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."
* * *
On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.
* * *
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:
"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.
"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'
"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...
Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.
When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)
Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.
That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.
It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.
Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."
The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.
Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)
The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.
As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."
The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.
Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.
If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.
Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.
Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.
This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

[Blaukraut]

30. This ought to blow the 'Kerry didn't respond to the swifties'

right out of the water. Unfortunately, people are not interested in facts.

[sendero]

57. What nonsense..

.... the FACT is, no matter how long a spam list of Kerry's rebuttals are, NOBODY SAW THEM, NOBODY HEARD THEM and he might as well have been barking at the moon.

A presidential candidate that cannot get HIS MESSAGE OUT, even in the confines of a hostile media, is not going to win.

There is simply no way to overesitmate the ineptitude of Kerry's campaign. A mere 4-5 weeks after the election, Bush was polling less than 50% approval. But Kerry could not push him off the wall becuase he is an old man set in his ways playing Queensbury rules with a bunch of knife fighters.

Sure, he HAS learned from his mistakes, a bit late for my tastes.

[blm]

64. Then explain how the silver-tongued, super-pol himself got impeached

when he had committed no impeachable offense?

And explain why people believe that Gore is a serial exaggerator and why they believe that Dean is a radical leftist?

[dansolo]

80. I'd argue that he hasn't learned from his mistakes

Considering his past behavior, especially his craven vote for the IWR, I am not yet convinced that all that he is doing now is anything more than pandering to the left, in order to secure the 2008 presiential nomination. He'd have more credibility with me if he wasn't so obviously jockeying for the nomination.

[blm]

82. Then explain his 35 yr record of taking on the toughest battles against

the GOP machine.

And please name any other lawmaker who has taken on tougher battles against the GOP machine than John Kerry has.

[sendero]

89. Not in a national election..

... my complaint with Kerry is he seems to think America at large runs the way the senate did 10 years ago.

Wrong on both counts.

[blm]

93. And you adjust - and he has - but he has always faced tougher battles

than any other lawmaker because he TOOK THEM ON and didn't back down. And he never did it for POSITIONING. The battles he took on should have been CAREER KILLERS - he was ostracized by most of DC for years. But, he stuck to his guns.

And no barbs against him here will make him back down from fighting on, either.

[sendero]

94. The simple fact is..

... we have lots of better choice than Kerry. If Kerry were a real fighter he would have done something about Ohio. He pussed out because he was afraid of messing up his 2008 chances.

[blm]

96. The simple fact is that Kerry and ANY nominee would've trusted the DNC was

doing its job and securing the vote.

DNc didn't believe in machine fraud, and there is no evidence IN the rigged machines afterwards. So, unless there was LEGAL EVIDENCE for Kerry to present to continue the legal court case, then he did all he could do at that time - the court cases he DID have, he is still involved in Ohio.

And the other simple fact - as it stands right now, Kerry is the ONLY one who even believes in machine fraud at this point. You want to HOPE that the next candidate works with the DNC to secure the machines?

I think if Kerry pursues making paper ballots mandatory state by state, he will be doing EXACTLY what is needed to be done.

[LibraLiz1973]

154. I agree. He walked away because he thought he could take it

in 2008.

He lost me for good the moment he conceded. He didn't even wait a full day!!

[LibraLiz1973]

125. I sort of agree

I think alot of the ball busting he has done since November has been grand standing to secure the 08 nomination. Where was this balls to the wall guy during the election? He was letting the election become a catastrophe. The 2004 election was an embarrassment- the republicans pulled one shitty stunt after another.
Here is a list of JUST A FEW of the things they did that pissed me off:

1. The windsurfing commercial. I was so hot about that I think I almost blew a gasket.

2. The purple heart band aids.

3. The Senior Bush staff dressing up like hunters on Halloween to mock Kerry.

4. The flip flop hand outs.

5. The mailers to people saying that Kerry was for gay marriage & was going to destroy America.

6. They got the catholic church to basically humiliate Kerry

7. The swift boat liars

8. The entire republican convention, from start to finish. My blood pressure was sky high during the entire thing.


Of course there are tons and tons and tons more.

But I couldn't understand why we weren't hitting back harder. Bush was totally exposed. Let's just look at SOME of the things he was vulnerable on then.

1. Mission Accomplished.

2. The speech given on the rubble pile @ Ground Zero.

3. Taxes taxes taxes

4. His National Guard record

5. The spoon feeding of false news stories to the media

6. My Pet Goat

7. The August 6 briefing.

8. The ineptitude of the entire Bush cabinet.

9. The color coded terror threat system that was SO OBVIOUSLY used to freak people out.

10. Problems with the health care system.


We should have started hitting him from day one and been relentless- they sure were with us. Think about the humongous anti-Bush, anti-war rallies!!!! How about the release of F-9/11. SO SO SO SO SO SO SO much was against him. We didn't fight as hard as we could - we seemed to decide to take a higher road... BIG mistake.

The Bush machine made Kerry sound like a simpering snob who over thought things and wouldn't be tough on terrorism. They got away with telling people OVER AND OVER that if Kerry was President America would not be safe. SERIOUSLY- THAT WAS PATHETIC!!!!!!! Those bumbling f'n assholes WHO SLEPT ON THE JOB AND GOT OUR NATION ATTACKED - who never did their jobs- who lied at every turn... managed to get out there and say "You dont switch horses mid stream". Darth Cheney made it sound like of Kerry was elected there would be terrorists in Washington on November 5 blowing us all to kingdom come. Not to mention the millions of gay marriages followed by gay sex that would take place in front of children! And abortion would now take place in a classroom! God would be angry, and would smite all the Catholics who dared vote Kerry!


Seriously- the things they said were so outlandish. We had the TRUTH on our side, but did not use it to our advantage. THAT is why I am so frustrated.

[blm]

141. Your praise is for the huge RW MESSAGE MACHINE, not ANYTHING Bush did.

The Democrats HAVE NO MESSAGE MACHINE - that's party INFRASTRUCTURE problem since 1997.

You want to claim that if only there was a different nominee the Dem party INFRASTRUCTURE would suddenly be in working order?

[LibraLiz1973]

151. DELETE

[LibraLiz1973]

152. lol- dont confuse what I said as being praise of the repug

message machine. What I was basically saying was they slung around alot of bullshit- we should have hit back 10 times as hard with the TRUTH. Thats why I was so mad- the Bushies didn't have jack shit that they didn't make up- but the Kerry people had TONS of ammo that was true and relevant that just wasn't used effectively.

But I do agree with you about the infrastructure.

[blm]

160. Your target has been KERRY - if you actually read Boehlert's book or

articles from media watchdogs like Media Matters you would know that EVERY ACTION the Kerry camp took was DOWNPLAYED, IGNORED, or EDITTED down into something unrecognizable.

Kerry went out and WON all of his matchups with Bush.

You blame Kerry for being the NOMINEE in 2004 who was stuck with a seriously weakened party infrastructure and NO MESSAGE MACHINE. Have you thought out a detailed piece on how and why the DEm infrastructure was allowed to collapse in so many important states since 1997? Have you posted about WHY the DEmocrats have NO MESSAGE MACHINE - they don't even muster up 10% of what the RW has - no analysis of that? What did Bill Clinton and Terry MacAuliffe actually set the Dem infrastructure up to do all those years they were in charge of strengthening that infrastructure?

Everything you CHOSE to blame on Kerry were actually the functions of the party and the media. Kerry is the natural target, because the left media and the Dem party bigwigs are NOT going to say how badly tHEY effed up or how ineffective THEY were.

[dogday]

144. Kerry is a Statesman

And I think we are going to need someone who is willing to get a little muddy this time around.. Someone who won't pull any punches with words, but says it just like it is... This country needs that. They need to rally round and fall madly in love with our Candidate...

[Blaukraut]

83. not nonsense at all

First off, when a poster submits times and dates for a factual rebuttal of a misconception or false claim, it shouldn't be called spam. At any other time people scream for links. Well, there they are.
Secondly, you said it; the confines of a hostile media. Would there really have been a candidate who would have done a better job at getting his message out than Kerry? Face it: our side has been heard and seen through a republican media filter since Clinton was in office and longer, and it will not change in the foreseeable future. So no matter who is going to be the next candidate, he or she will have a difficult time getting out the truth and will have to resort to using alternate sources of information more often than not.

[sendero]

87. Come on..

... there are ways to get air time if you want it. As a last resort you buy it. As a first resort you say something interesting, compelling and dramatic, because that's what the media wants and that's what the republicans give them.

Kerry is a great senator, he's just not the right kind of person to be president. His political judgement simply sucks.

[blm]

76. You will see few who were so UPSET by the swifts bother to check the facts

because their purpose in using the swifts is just cover. if I was worried or angered about something in particular, then I would want to know as much as I can about it, to be better prepared to not let it SUCCEED again.

[LibraLiz1973]

72. Just for the record....

I knew about all the responses that Kerry had and I really didn't think they were strong enough.
I agree that the press didn't carry what he did say- but I never thought it was that tough. (the response)

[blm]

81. The point was that the PUBLIC didn't hear it - so there's no way

of knowing their effect now, is there?

Kerry was plenty tough taking them on directly in front of thousands of Firefighters, but the media chose to NOT AIR that speech.

and further - BUSH never defended himself - - ever. He had a rightwing message machine and top GOP names doing it for him every day. Where were the supertough Dem names matching Giuliani, McCain and Dole on TV every night? Why did the left pundits, spokespeople and media get their asses handed to them every night by the RW media that STAYED on message?

Kerry won all his matchups with Bush - did the DNC win its matchup with the RNC? Did left media win its matchup with the RW media? Did the Dem INFRASTRUCTURE secure the votes as well as the GOPs stole the votes?

[sendero]

91. Exactly...

.. someone calls you a motherfucker and you call them a big doodie.

The response has to be proportionate to the outrage of the lies. One wonders sometimes if Kerry was really prepared to totally defend his record - he didn't sound like he was.

[blm]

97. Did Bush? Or was the RNC and GOP spokespeople doing it for him?

.

[sendero]

98. When you are already president..

... the rules change my friend.

[blm]

go back to 2000 - Did Bush or did the RNC and GOP spokespeople do it

for him? ;)

Not to mention they stranglehold they have on every aspect of the mainstream media.

It really is the enemy - and there isn't anything that can be done about it till Dems make the determination to do something about it as a party effort.

[grasswire]

4. I'll go farther

I won't vote for any member of Skull & Bones. Period.

[LibraLiz1973]

17. I am loathe to say this and start something but....

the Skull & Bones thing always bothered me.

[blm]

Didn't it bother you more that Dems with no S&B in college let BushInc off

the hook in 1993 and closed the books on IranContra and BCCI investigations that John Kerry worked his ass off for years to investigate and expose?

Can you even NAME another Democrat who has taken on tougher battles against BushInc CONSISTENTLY over the years?

Can you name a Democrat who worked to expose more government corruption than Kerry has?

[Terran1212]

5. I agree with you

Why not support more progressive people who can actually run things well? There's not just one good person out there to represent us.

[Kerry fan]

6. You said, "In the end, Kerry let down a lot of people."

I do not feel "let down" by Kerry. I trust John Kerry more than any politician in this country. He is not perfect. He may have made a few mistakes, but anyone who has followed the election fraud knows that Kerry won and probably by a large margin.

The only thing that let us down was our fraudulent election system. Bush would have "won" that election if we had run Jesus Christ himself.

[LibraLiz1973]

29. I said he let down alot of people, not everybody

I really wasn't trying to say every democrat hated him



BTW= thanks for the chuckle on the Jesus Christ thing!! lol

[catmother]

7. i know exactly how you feel. you are absolute right. if kerry

runs again i will not vote for him in the primary. but if he is the nominee which i doubt he will get my vote. whoever the nominee is will get my vote.

[lastknowngood]

8. I agree 100% as a mater of fact I don't see anyone in list of

"front runners" That I could vote for. The time for voting for the D is past, if they don't fight and speak plain english I'm not wasting my time.

[Orsino]

9. I understand disappointment in Kerry.

He wasn't my first choice in '04, either. Rather than abstaining, though, I will be voting for any Dem ticket, my first priority being the defeat of the GOP.

[closeupready]

10. Good points.

Dems need to play dirty. Too bad, but that's how it works.

I think if Kerry had a better team, he could do that. Cahill was not good.

I also like him, but I would not want to see him as the '08 candidate, but I would get behind him if he was the candidate.

[Seabiscuit]

11. You spelled out my reasons for not supporting Kerry for nomination.

Granted, he's come around this year and said some really good and well-phrased things.

But, alas, he's two years and a landslide short. If Kerry had come out fighting in 2004 instead of falling on his sword as you have spelled out, he would have won in a landslide against a very vulnerable and exposed Bush. Hell, Howdy Doody should have won in a landslide.

Gore, if he runs. Feingold if he doesn't. Clark if neither makes it. Or a ticket combining any 2 of these 3 will inspire my donations and my vote.

Of course, I will vote for Kerry in 08 in the general election if that's what we're stuck with, but man, the acid reflux revisited is going to taste bitter the second time around.

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. landslide????

:rofl: :rofl:

McGovern was a landslide.

Mondale was a landslide.

Kerry was 100,000 votes away.

:eyes: Landslide my liberal ass.

[Seabiscuit]

24. Don't distort my meaning. I said Kerry *would have* won in a landslide if

he had come out fighting instead of wimping out the way he did on all the issues spelled out by the OP. Bush's approval rating was tanking at 40% in '04.

We deserve a candidate who speaks plain English and fights for the truth about the Bush cabal (and who doesn't stick his foot in his mouth as Howard Dean did on occasion).

[karynnj]

103. Bush's approval rating was never 40% in 2004

it was actually quite close to 50%. (and it bothered me that pundits kept making a big deal about 50%. There were no previous presidents in the 40-50% range. Some who disapproved were on the conservative end and were not going to vote for a Democrat. His dad was below 40% in 1992.

[WI_DEM]

31. that is very true it was the media after '04 who tried to claim Bush won

a "mandate", but the popular vote was 51-48 percent and Kerry lost by roughly three million votes (electorally he would have won if he had taken Ohio), so it was a close election, but the thing is it really shouldn't have been a close election given Bush's record and approval ratings (in the 40's during much of '04).

[Mass]

14. Amusing how these threads spread each time Kerry does something good.

I leave you to your lovefest, and to your unfactual facts.

You obviously can think what you want, but I am proud of my senator and ready to support him in another race. If anything, posts like that, from people who are chilling for somebody else, reinforce the fact that I trust him. Thank you for reminding that to me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. it is amazing, isn't it?

I wonder what would happen if, every time Russ Feingold/Al Gore/whoever the DU sacred cow is this week was in the news, I posted a thread designed to insult them?

[LibraLiz1973]

25. I've seen plenty of threads trashing Gore & Feingold

Just sayin....

[Mass]

32. And I despise the people who started these threads as much as those

who start threads like yours.

If you cant support Edwards without thrashing Kerry, it says very little for him. Tell us why you liked him, because I really did not connect with him.

[LibraLiz1973]

39. I could easily support Edwards without trashing Kerry

The thread wasn't about Edwards. I only stated who I preferred on THAT ticket.

Don't take it personally- it is not/was not an attack on Kerry. It was a list of my personal thoughts.
Attacking me & the way I think isn't really doing anything.

[Mass]

41. Am I attacking you - I am only giving a list of my personal thoughts.

Attacking me & the way I think isn't really doing anything.

[karynnj]

107. You said you preferred Edwards - then blamed Kerry for his

non-spectacular role saying Kerry "marginalized" him. The MEDIA covered both Kerry and Edwards badly.

[LibraLiz1973]

42. So you despise anyone who doesn't think like you?

That's really sad.... and frankly,very Ann Coulter.

[Mass]

44. No, anyone who tries to divide Dems when there is so much to do.

Attacking me & the way I think isn't really doing anything.

[LibraLiz1973]

75. But from what I gather of your posts

ANYONE who isn't Pro Kerry is dividing the Dems. So by that criteria, there are alot of dividers out there.

[Mass]

78. certainly not. but anybody who starts a thread to kill a potential

candidate at this point of the game is (particularly when it is clear that this is because he supports another candidate). 06 before 08. Just my opinion.

[blm]

51. Threads STARTED that trash Gore or Feingold? Where?

Or are you confusing posts that are written in REPLY to someone trashing Kerry to promote their preference for Feingold or Gore?

Because I never see THREADS started that trash either Gore or Feingold, and I wouldn't want them started - - but, if someone wants to take on that battle and trashes Kerry as a lesser lawmaker, well then, that is BEGGING for the record to be set straight - and I will do it. And it's EASY to do it, because the RECORDS speak for themselves and speak LOUDER than words to any audience.

[Seabiscuit]

43. You don't have to post a thread to insult us. You do it repeatedly with

every post you put up.

[LibraLiz1973]

47. DELETE

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. I DARE you to point to any post where I have attacked Gore or Feingold

Don't you fucking dare lie about me.

[Seabiscuit]

119. Your language is offensive but your logic is merely laughable.

Could you possibly be any more irrelevant?

Oh, and by the way, I don't have to "fucking dare" to "lie" about you. I merely have to point out the obvious to throw you into an irrational tizzy.

And even if I "fucking dared" to do whatever I want, what are you going to do about? You can't even construct a coherent thought, so I can't imagine your hand-eye coordination is any better.

[WildEyedLiberal]

156. "Offensive"? What's offensive are your insinuations

What "logic" do you find laughable? That I demand you back up your smears and lies about me?

Go on, asshole. PROVE where I have denigrated a possible 2008 candidate on DU. PROVE IT. Or shut the fuck up, you miserable piece of shit.

[Seabiscuit]

162. What's laughable is your illogic in concluding that I have somehow

issued "smears and lies" by "insuations" about you. Go back and read the post I wrote that you went ballistic over. It says nothing about Feingold, Gore, or any other "possible 2008 candidate". It refers to "us".

I could hit the "alert" button and have this and other posts of yours deleted if I wanted to, but I'm not that kind of guy, and besides, I think it's fun to see your hysterical posts up their in original form for all to see your stark-raving meltdown.

[LibraLiz1973]

22. Mass, is it possible

That posts like this come up when Kerry's name comes up because it is such a divisive issue?

For the record, I did NOT post unfactual fact. And I am not chiling for another candidate. Really.

I respect your opinion. Your entitled to it, as I am to mine.

No candidate is perfect- but there has to be someone who could do a better job of uniting the party instead of dividing it.
(again... my opinion)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[LibraLiz1973]

45. Ack. The thread had NOTHING to do with

Kerry supporting the withdrawal of troops.

You need to take a deep breath and relax. Perhaps these threads turn into flame bait because people get so ridiculously angry they can't read. Or think straight.

If I wanted to pile on Kerry, I would. My post was calm and rational. I didn't call him satan. I didn't say he was a horrible human being. I didn't bash him. Don't put words in my mouth. And watch it with that "people like me" business. People like ME are the reason many a democrat has money to spend. People like ME are the reason 12 seniors got rides to the polls on election day. People like ME are the reason 28 people registered to vote in my precinct in 2004. People like ME are the reason Kerry/Edwards events got set up and broken down. People JUST LIKE ME worked their asses off for the Democratic party and deserve better than to be treated like rubbish because our thoughts differ from yours.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Your post has a lot of "me"s in it

To hear you talk, you're the only activist who ever walked the earth.

I find it highly ironic that you'd choose to post a thread about Kerry in 2008 on the heels of an impressive anti-war speech given by him. I do not believe in coincidences - your agenda is quite evident.

[LibraLiz1973]

62. I was merely responding to your "People like you" comment

You have literally distorted everything that has come out of my mouth/keyboard.

What started out as a stream of consciousness thought process became, to you, a manifesto of hate against John Kerry.
Obviously I must have written it because of his anti war speech! And, and, and.... I also just wrote it to push my candidate! Oh, and that was after I decided to write it so that it could be flame bait!! Are you LISTENING to yourself?
So much anger is pouring out of you that your not bothering to absorb anything you read. Your taking everything personally, as if the thread was about you. As if it were an actual attack. If my thread can be taken as an attack on Kerry, then you have very thin skin. I've seen and read alot worse. My post was calm. You just keep posting angrier and angrier stuff. Chill!! I wasn't attacking anybody. It was an OPINION.

[LibraLiz1973]

63. I was merely responding to your "People like you" comment

You have literally distorted everything that has come out of my mouth/keyboard.

What started out as a stream of consciousness thought process became, to you, a manifesto of hate against John Kerry.
Obviously I must have written it because of his anti war speech! And, and, and.... I also just wrote it to push my candidate! Oh, and that was after I decided to write it so that it could be flame bait!! Are you LISTENING to yourself?
So much anger is pouring out of you that your not bothering to absorb anything you read. Your taking everything personally, as if the thread was about you. As if it were an actual attack. If my thread can be taken as an attack on Kerry, then you have very thin skin. I've seen and read alot worse. My post was calm. You just keep posting angrier and angrier stuff. Chill!! I wasn't attacking anybody. It was an OPINION.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Seabiscuit]

118. Ooooooo.... the "f" word..

Doing that wouldn't "reassure" me, but it might come in handy.

[LittleClarkie]

132. Would you mind spelling out what you're insinuating?

Many people don't have their profiles on. It doesn't make them a troll or freeper.

[blm]

126. Is it POSSIBLE to attack Kerry using FACTS ONLY and not mediaspin?

Because we find the MEDIASPIN against him divisive - as it was intended. Give me facts and I'll give you facts back. There should be nothing divisive about facts - facts are facts.

[stepnw1f]

157. Nope... And Never Will Be Able To

nice handle blm.

[Jigarotta]

16. why do you think your vote will count? n/t

[WI_DEM]

20. I agree with much of what you wrote but disagree on this

you said that Kerry was not presidential. That is wrong--he is presidential. You could see that in the debates with Bush--Bush was the president, but Kerry was the one who looked and acted presidential. I think he would probably be a very good, honorable, very intelligent president--what he isn't, IMO, is a very good candidate. He ran a lousy campaign in a year against a weak president who was already suffering in the polls (most of 2004 Bush was in the 40's)and we had a great deal of ammunition to use against him and didn't go all out because Kerry was afraid of alienating independent voters. However, if he is nominated in '08, I'm hopeful he will have learned from his '04 mistakes and run a better, sharper campaign. I would certainly support him IF he is the '08 Democratic nominee--there is no other way to go.

[catmother]

26. definitely looked presidential. during those debates georgie

was uncomfortable, stuttering, nervous. i can't understand how anyone could have voted for that bumbling fool.

[Deja Q]

21. Agreed

The concession was way too early for my liking.

This is the biggie and it ties in with your point about the kid gloves: Kerry had NUMEROUS UPON NUMEROUS times to whip * in the debates and it was the debates more than anything else where it counts. He was, forgive me, a total pansy the entire time. Those answers to the questions he got had me blushing over how easy it would be to answer them and then ask the same of the OPPONENT, and Bush had no right to ask those questions as he could have been called out on just as many of them. You don't ask questions that your OPPONENT would use against you. So why didn't Kerry?

You're not being rude at all. You've got many valid points and his performance made Al Gore look confident and sublime by comparison.

Or maybe Kerry saw how the press killed Dean and didn't want to make the same mistake. (So then why not be calm and cool when answering then posing the questions right back?)

[politicasista]

28. Wow! Which Dem shall we trash today?

I see Kerry. This is SOOO much MORE fun than slamming Blinky and his cronies and holding them accountable for THEIR mess. It is SOOOO productive and it will help us win in 06 and beyond. :sarcasm:

[WI_DEM]

33. I think it is in response to a post by somebody on why they will

support Kerry in '08. It's just part of the debate.

[politicasista]

36. Debates are fine, but slamming a dem to promote another

is not a debate. It is a flamewar period. The OP could have said, "I will support Edwards in 2008" and list why and the facts. There was no need to drag Kerry into this and rehash 2004 all over again.

[NobleCynic]

128. Nonsense

The negative has just as much right in any debate has the positive. One must be able to express the flaws regarding a candidate in order for the discussion of the virutes to mean anything at all. No light, no dark. No good, no evil. Close your eyes to one and lose sight of the other.

Besides, if Kerry had gone negative against Bush he would have done much better.

[politicasista]

136. Remember a poll

that more people thought that Kerry attacked more than Bush unfairly. There were a lot of mistakes made, but at least Kerry takes responsibility unlike Blinky who never admits to none.


I stand by my post.

[NobleCynic]

147. Perhaps we're both right

Maybe people thought Kerry attacked Bush unfairly. My impression is that he hardly attacked Bush at all. Perception isn't reality however. If Kerry was branded that way already, as being an attacker so to speak, could it have hurt him more to actually have ran a strong negative campaign?

[LibraLiz1973]

35. This is what I find sad

Trashing him? Far from it.
Having a debate is healthy. Not having conversations and expressing opinions is ludicrous. Very Nazi-ish. People are allowed to talk. Isn't that what DU is for? Healthy debate?

My opinion may differ from yours, but it doesn't mean we have to be rude to each other.
No one knows how to talk anymore... it's straight to boiling anger or bust!

[OhioBlue]

60. ...

:eyes:
yes, debate is healthy.

you see, where you lose people is when you say you will not vote for him, even if he wins the primary. Then, you make it divisive.

You could have said you don't prefer him as the nominee... although, it might be best to wait until after the '06 election when we all need to pull together and work together to get Dems elected.... The candidates to deal with are now - not speculating on who might be the primary front runners for '08 and throwing out a hypothetical if this is the guy I won't vote for him debate... It only serves to divide the party when we need to work together.

[tomreedtoon]

140. It doesn't matter who we trash - every Dem will lose.

The Democratic Party will continue to pick losing candidates, so that you can feel all happy and stuff about picking a "moral, principled" man instead of someone who wishes to fight the Republicans. And I don't need your cute dripping icon at the end of my statement; it's clear from the last few elections, and the comments currently made by the candidates themselves, that NO Democrat wants to be in the White House.

[stevedeshazer]

34. So, you're voting for McCain?

Or "Stump" Allen, or Jesus Frist?

Come on, I don't agree but aren't we on the same team?

I try to avoid threads about 2008 (I'm much more concerned with 2006) but I can't help but respond to this.

If you can't see beyond that, well, I wish I could somehow change your mind.

It's WAY too soon for that, respectfully. :)

[LibraLiz1973]

49. Don't Even Get Me Started on McCain.....

I'd NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER vote for him.

[liontamer]

40. well he probably won't run again

people rarely do when they come so close to winning the previous election. So I suppose none of us will be voting for him

[LittleClarkie]

137. The signs are there that he is.

A word about my fellow Kerry friends. Several of them have met the man, and spent an evening drinking beer and talking to him on his birthday in a very warm, friendly atmosphere. I do believe, as Emeril would say, that experience kicked their support up a notch. BAM!

I, sadly, was unable to attend. But don't let anyone tell you that Kerry isn't the kind of person to have a beer with someone in a bar. We know different.

[Individualist]

48. I agree with you.

Ignore the attacks, condescension and strawmen; they're standard tactics for DLC supporters who have no respect for opinions differing from their own.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. DLC supporters hated Kerry's anti-war speech Tuesday

DLC supporters are busy trashing Kerry right now.

[LibraLiz1973]

59. I think we all understand that your a Kerry supporter

You are more than entitled to your opinion.
But is it necessary to LITERALLY attack everyone who does not agree with you?

[Mass]

61. She is disagreeing. Is she not allowed to express her disagreement?

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Obviously it's only a one way street

[LibraLiz1973]

68. Disagree? Or Attack? I'd say she's ATTACKING

And I don't think thats healthy. Not for anyone.
Does she want to say something RATIONAL? Because I bet everyone would be willing to listen to that.
SHE is the one that is turning a perfectly even toned post into flame bait. Is it necessary to say that everyone
that does not agree with you is a traitor? An idiot? Not in my book. But that seems to be whats going on here.

[Mass]

74. And I'd say you are attacking her (and me) for voicing our disagreement.

You are not a traitor or an idiot? You posted deliberately a post that not only say you do not support a Kerry run (you are clearly not the only one and many people will prefer somebody else), but that you would not support him if he is the nominee.

While I disagree with your arguments for the first part (and think that your liking of Edwards probably skews a few of them), I cannot agree with the second part. Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, but dont act surprised that people will vehemently disagree on one or the other of these points.

[LibraLiz1973]

86. We could argue about this all day

But the truth is, we wouldn't be talking about the original issue. I never attacked either one of you- go back and read the posts that you both shot off with. Then think about the tone. Then re-read it. Just who was on the attack?

[Mass]

92. What original issue. I told you that I disagree. I will proudly support

Kerry if he runs, or Gore or Feingold if not. At this point, this is where I stand.

While the Kerry campaign certainly made errors (who did not?), he got the most votes a democrat ever got, and he definitively connected with people who went to his meetings and met him. The media coverage was weak, no doubt about that, and there are things that he will need to rethink (like not choosing Edwards who was a weak surrogate), if he is the nominee again, and be less dependant of the DC strategists.

The other issues have been largely discussed on this board and elsewhere. If nothing you have read can convince you that you are wrong, I dont exactly see what I could say that would change your mind. So what would be the point to argue on that.

So, eventually, you will be the one who makes the choice for a general election if Kerry is the nominee. Your choice is simple: either empower the Republican candidate or vote for Kerry. Your choice, not mine.

[LittleClarkie]

134. Calling someone a DLC supporter is attacking them?

Perhaps in some circles...

[sendero]

58. You have...

.. pretty much summed it up. I won't go so far as to say I would not vote for him, but he is last place, right behind Hillary, as my choice of someone who could actually lead the Dem party to victory.

[Clark2008]

71. The press margailized Edwards because he said the same thing

over and over and over again.

That sells, I guess, to Dittoheads, but not swing voters and Democrats.

It was the only thing the press was accurate about - you know, after they billed him to be such a superstar. :eyes:

[Minnesota Libra]

77. Can we please get through Nov 06 before we start this stuff?? nt

[MoonRiver]

84. I agree with you LiberaLiz,

and admire your chutzpa in taking on the small but VERY vocal DU Kerry crowd. :hide:

[Breeze54]

85. You make a lot of valid points.

I respect your opinion and your absolute right to express it!
I agree with points 1,2,3,4,5 & 6!! :rofl: Well; really only parts of them. ;)
But I really don't think he will run again.
If he is the ONLY choice, if he should win the nomination,(which I doubt)
then I will vote for him because I never vote for pigs!
But I seriously think he won't make it back for a second round.
JMO!

You have every right to air your views and not be attacked as a usurper.
This IS a discussion board and it's ok to air the dirty laundry!
I see these kinds of posts as an opportunity to change minds..."no blind faith"!
I don't think you were anything but matter-of-fact and to the point.
I didn't percieve you trying to sow discourse at all.

Have a great night!
I'm still thoroughly enjoying the Iraq "debates" on C-Span!
:)

[LeahD]

90. When I heard him speak in Ohio, he said he would make the

decision about running again shortly after the '06 elections. Until then, his focus is supporting fellow democrats around the country who are running for office.

[LibraLiz1973]

88. Who I would consider voting for... and who I would not

Gore? Love him. Do I think he will run? Probably not. Do I think he should? In all honesty thats a yes AND a no. I would hate to see him thrown under a bus again. What he went through in 2000... I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I don't want people out trashing Al again. The repubs were brutal. I think Al deserved better from everybody involved and I was damn dissapointed that not one senator would sign anything in 00.

Edwards? Love him. If he wins the primary, I am all over that campaign. Do I think he will? That's a maybe.

Clinton? Absolutely NOT.

Feingold? This is a maybe. I would have to know alot more about him.

Biden? Now here's a tricky one. I'm not for him- but I don't loathe him. I'd support him before Hillary.

Dean? I just don't think it would happen. If it did, I would support him.

Kerry? No. Read the original post.


Dream ticket? It would have John Conyers or Barbara Boxer on it.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[LibraLiz1973]

100. I don't think that at all

Thinking that is akin to thinking we get no vote at all.... ever.
It would also make John Kerry the worst kind of lying, evil bastard in the world.
I'll never believe that is true. Kerry is an honorable man. One of my main points is that he is TOO honorable
to fight against the republican bastards.

For the record- I think a republican started that rumor.

[Phrogman]

102. Think about it.....

Take a good independent look at what happened, no fight, no recount, no nothing.

Everybody was FOOLED.

I started getting wise to this set-up when Kerry didn't SAY ANYTHING about his opponent having an ear piece during the debate.

Kerry should of RAISED HELL RIGHT DURING THE DEBATE AND REQUESTED THE MODERATOR TO MAKE BUSH REMOVE THE EARPIECE.

Look back at everything that happened, WE WERE SCAMMED!

[Phrogman]

105. But all that said, I will vote for Wes Clarke if he gets to run...

But he won't.



He's not "one of them"

[LibraLiz1973]

110. By this definition, do you think Clinton was

"One of them"? Was he allowed to win?

Alot of bad shit went down in '04. But Kerry losing wasn't a Skull & Bones problem. (my beef w/ the S&B thing was that it smacked of richboyitis) Kerry would have to be a MORON to agree to having Buscho attack him in such a vile and despicable way. If he had agreed to that, don't you think it would have been alot less vile? Bush attacked Kerry like he was the worlds worst human.

You think Kerry agreed to lose? Puh-lease.

[LittleClarkie]

143. When you say "no fight"

do you not count the lawsuit in Ohio as fighting?

And when you say we were "fooled" I hope you aren't leading up to some wacky Skull and Bones theory.

[Breeze54]

104. WoW!! What the hell are you smoking??

:rofl: Great! Don't vote! I get to rule your world and I love power!! :sarcasm:

Don't worry....I'll decide FOR you. Bumuhawawahawahawaha!!!!

Go back to sleep......ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

[Phrogman]

106. Yea...I'm really shaking in my shoes over that

Pffftt...

How silly.

[Breeze54]

108. Hahahahahaha!!! I'm silly?? LMAO! ... n/t

:rofl:

[Phrogman]

115. Look at this Google ad after after I posted this....

Skull Rings
A large selection of quality skull rings at unbeatable prices.

[LibraLiz1973]

101. For you Kerry lovers, I would like to point out that

The "I Will Support Kerry" thread has 19 recommendations while the thread I started has 9.
Ergo, there are more Kerry supporters than not. So there was/is no reason to freak out.


Just sayin.

[MH1]

109. Not freaking out

but I see no positive purpose to your post.

Seems it would be a better use of time to post all the great things Edwards (your candidate, if I understand correctly) is working on, with some links and ideas what people can do to actually help out his initiatives.

I am a Kerry supporter but also a supporter of logic and fact, and I think your reasoning is faulty about the number of recommendations. The "I'll support Kerry" post is extremely well-constructed, informative, and positive, while yours is negative and consists of mostly opinion, with no backup for your assertions. Therefore, the difference in recommendations may be largely for the quality and usefulness of the post, and have absolutely nothing to do with the relative support for one position or another.

[wisteria]

111. Much of what you write about Kerry is inaccurate or just wrong .

I personally think your suggestion that Kerry marginalized Edwards is way off the mark.Obviously, I do not agree with you regarding Kerry. I knew I was supporting him early on in 2003. He is a fine man and Edwards and Kerry remain friends to this day.

It is a shame you have to post an attack flaimbait piece on Kerry in order to promote Edwards.You do a disservice to Edwards trying to promote him this way.

[Clarkie1]

113. A lot of people had trouble connecting with Kerry.

It's not his fault, he just doesn't have that elusive quality.

[politicasista]

172. Sounds like you believed the lies of the media.

Based on the reports from fellow DUers that have met him, they say the opposite from what YOU are saying. That is RW media spin and you and many others that I know fell for it.

You are always putting down Kerry to promote Clark and that is wrong, just wrong. I like Clark and I would NEVER bash him to promote other Dems.

[iconoclastNYC]

114. I agree with you.

Kerry had his chance.

[JudyM]

129. Same goes for me. Plus he had far too much $ left unused that could've

bought more ads for himself or for other dems who were in contested races. We desperately needed more media saturation since our points were barely getting through the newscaster talking heads who just kept parroting the chimp every day.

I'm actually a bit pissed off personally, that in the final days he sent out a plea for donations, using Gore to say that running out of $ at the end can throw the whole race. I was moved, and sent him $ (though I was out of work!) only to hear shortly thereafter that he had held on to a lot of $. And then he didn't spend it to contest the results. I read somewhere at the time that he was keeping it for a future run.

[robinlynne]

139. could have counted the votes with that money, our money.

[raysr]

116. So you're going to

vote Puke, because even if you don't vote for anyone it's a vote for Pukes, the Freeper's will welcome you with open arms!
No longer any room for "conscience" votes!!

[SavetheUSA]

117. He wasn't electable

Maybe we should do the opposite of what the DLC and corporate media tell us and choose Dennis Kucinich as our candidate.

It is our time to stand up for the true values of the party! It is our turn to rally our base!

[seabeyond]

120. kerry is a piece of shit candidate; he won the election, stolen

you hit it on both accounts here. you list all the reasons kerry cant win. then you claim he won but didnt fight for it.

and a poster above said this is a well laid out argument. you hit on every single talking point and i can argue republican bullshit on at least 80%

but i really want to know how you say he was such a poor performer, and he won.
the elections were stolen and he didnt fight them

one or the other

[Seabiscuit]

121. It's really quite simple.

Kerry should have won in a landslide had he fought for it, i.e., a margin great enough that they couldn't steal it without getting caught.

[seabeyond]

122. ahhhhhh... now not only does he have to win, but by a landslide

though everyting in histroy points otherwise to an incumbent and nation at war. further leaving out all the other factors, like a hostile media.

so kerry is a lousy candidate and cant win
he won and didnt fight
he should have won by the margin they cant steal

and what was the margin stole from kerry. how do you know the margin they stole. how do you know where that magic number is. or, are you saying he has to pull a ridiculous 60%, 65%

how about if kerry isnt solely pinned and made accountable for ALL our woes and all of us are responsible in what we create.

nah..... so much simpler to just kick and beat up one, blaming one for all

[Seabiscuit]

123. Oh, come off it.

Kerry wimped out on all issues, especially Iraq, and even lay down and let the Swift-boaters walk all over him.

Bush was very vulnerable, but Kerry didn't take advantage of it. Instead, we got things like: "Yeah, George, we both saw the same intelligence about Iraq, and yeah, we both came to the same conclusion, and yeah, I voted for your IWR, I just would have gone about going to war a little differently."

On that one issue, Kerry could have made a huge difference and didn't. He should have won by enough points (5-10% at the minimum, but a tough campaign should have guaranteed more like a 20% margin) that they couldn't steal it without the theft being obvious.

As it is, it's taken some doing to demonstrate that clearly Kerry won Ohio, but instead of fighting until every last vote was counted, as he repeatedly promised he would, he betrayed all of us by caving in and conceding before I even woke up in California the day after the election.

How can anyone trust a man like that?

[LittleClarkie]

133. By not accepting most of your premises, that's how.

Kerry wasn't Dean. He wasn't an attack dog. He laid out what he wanted to do in as reasonable a fashion as he could. He made some mistakes to be sure. But some of it was in the man's nature. He wasn't wimpy. He was deliberate. He likes to have his ducks in a row before he comes out swinging. And he perhaps listened to the wrong people who thought that what happened in May re: the Smear vets would happen again. It didn't. The media jumped on it in August where they let it lay in May.

It was not a wimpy man who slaughtered Bush in the debates, and had momentum going into the final days.

It was that people were still buying into the war on terror and not switching presidents mid-war. Only within the last year have I seen signs of people waking up. God I hope it continues. Bush was able to use the last of his 9/11 currency. That's all spent now. Bush was not as vunerable as you make him out to be.

And Kerry the prosecutor was not coming out after the election without a smoking gun. He just wasn't.

I still love it when he gets angry. Even I sometimes fall asleep when he is not. But he is a wonder to behold when he is. It's sorta like watching Clark Kent turn into Superman, or more apropriately, David Banner turn into the Hulk. Hence my avatar.

[Seabiscuit]

163. IOW, by living in denial...

His biggest fault was not offering the voters a real choice on the issue of Iraq. He came across as Bush-lite. So any undecided voters could say to themselves: "Since there is no real difference in their positions, I might as well go with the real thing, Bush, rather than just Bush-lite."

By the way, I have not spelled out any "premises". Just the obvious facts, ma'am.

[LittleClarkie]

165. Nope, sorry. You can't define your opinion as just the facts and the truth

and my opinion as someone living in denial. Sorry.

You have your opinions about how things went, and I have mine. You are not guardian of ultimate truth.

[LittleClarkie]

131. There is that.

One would think that Sen. Kerry is Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis rolled into one by how badly he supposedly ran his campaign. And yet he is also criticized for not fighting for his win. Well, gee, if he won, how bad a campaign could it have been?

He made mistakes, but so have all our candidates to some extent. The Daily Howler convinced me though that the real problem is that we allow the MSM to trash our candidates, and often agree with them as they do. I feel the same about Gore. We need to do a better job of defending these guys. But if is often quite partisan even within our own party. I'll do my best to work for whoever we nominate... even, God help me, Hillary.

[Snivi Yllom]

124. you left off Bob Shrum

Mr. 'Oh and Nine'

[LittleClarkie]

135. I hope neither he or Donna Brazille ever go within a mile of any campaigns

ever, ever again.

[mdmc]

127. I will vote for Zell Miller or whatever rat worm dino pro war enabler

get the Dem nomination. Of course, I would love to see a Gore / Clinton ticket with Green Party tendencies (no free trade, drug war, pre-emptive war, or death penalty... and pro union).

[LittleClarkie]

130. That's cool. I, on the other hand, already have a Kerry 2008 sticker

on my car.

To each his or her own.

[robinlynne]

138. You who love Kerry. that is fine.

Why is it such a big deal to you, as if you have found a religious idol?
None of us knows who the dem candidate will be. No candidate is above reproach.
I hope that we will all vote for the dem candidate, whomever that may be.
But know that the majority of demcrats are disppointed in kerry. we all worked for him. He let us down tremendously and handed over the government to Bush.
We still love him as a senator. I love Teresa too. but there is no way in the world you will be able to unite us all around kerry. not remotelyy possible. We went through that. it was unpleasant. We will not do it again.
That is a fact. Why not try to get him as the head of an important senate committee/
He will not be supported by the majority of the left in this country for pres. no matter what he does now.
Let's jsut hope there is a candidate we can all unite around, and who is strong enough to kick bush in the face on national tv. loud and clear.

[LittleClarkie]

142. "A majority of Democrats"

When was the poll taken?

So far, in most polls I've see, he comes in second after Hillary. Not all Dems are up in arms about the fact that he conceded, at least none that are around me, anyway. Perhaps a bunch around you are, but that hardly makes for "a majority of Democrats"

As for "loving" Kerry, well, it's just that the same grievances come up over and over and over as if those who bring them up think that we're Drew Barrymore in the middle of "50 First Dates." It doesn't seem to matter what the topic at hand is, there are those who will non sequitor their way into IWR, or vote counting or whatever. And then there was the rampant Skull and Bones hysteria, which personally ground my butt to the bone.

And several of the people in this thread met the man and feel like they know him. You'd defend a friend, wouldn't you?

[robinlynne]

145. Here in La, I dont know anyone who supports kerry for pres.

in progressive democrats for america, in democracy for america, he is not mentioned by anyone as a candidate.
btw, I don't think the left will support hillary at all. She has been supporting the war and courting the right. I wasn't thinking kerry vs hillary. I think it is about who will stand up against election fraud and the hard republican abuses. (not only the war. I know kerry is taking a great stand on the war, and I wholly support that.)
otherwise the republican will win no matter who our candidate is.

and yes, I would support a friend. And I admire the way you said that. That makes sense to me.

[LittleClarkie]

146. Thanks. I know one other person besides me who wants him for prez

But I was addressing more the disappointment aspect, I suppose. Some think he could have been more charismatic, but I don't know anyone who's mad at him.

Maybe if I lived in Madison, our capitol, the story would be different. Our progressive concentration is there.

[blm]

161. HAHAH.... Kerry won all his matchups with Bush - the DEM PARTY DID NOT

and the left media DID NOT. They are the ones who got their asses kicked and NONE OF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT, so they all pile on Kerry - - the ONE PERSON who won DECISIVELY every match up he had with Bush.

Name ONE person who would have done better with the EXACT SAME LAME-ASS Dem infrastructure allowed to weaken for years by Bill Clinton and Terry MacAulliffe. And with the exact same LAME-ASS to the point of NON-EXISTENT LEFT MEDIA....name ONE DEm who controlled the mainstream media that way.

[NastyDiaper]

148. The smear worked, we should back off?

Nty.

[w4rma]

149. This thread is a waste of time. Spend your time on THIS November, plz (nt)

[blue cat]

150. You'll have a list of similar complaints

when the next candidate is "Gored". My repub sister called me last night telling me everyone has been making fun of Gore lately, i.e. inventing the internet, burning fuel in private jets, lying about global warming etc. She also almost bursted an artery by talking about Murtha. They will do it to any of our candidates.

Kerry is a great man that only comes along once in a generation. He could win, if fact he did win. I believe this with all my heart. The country isn't ready to accept that we no longer live in a democracy.

[LibraLiz1973]

155. I accept that the democracy is very much on the way out

But what you said goes to my point. Why didn't Kerry act on that?!?!?! It was so obvious those cheating tards were playing dirty pool. Election night 2004 will stick in my craw forever. Literally. When the news channels all started getting very glum about Kerry I ran into the bathroom and threw up. I prayed all night that a miracle would happen. THe next morning there was talk of some irregularities. I felt like, MAYBE. I was at a restaurant when the concession came on. Once again, ran to the bathroom and puked. So heartbroken. Went home in a daze. Watched Kerry & Edwards speak later that day- cried my way through the entire thing.The idea of 4 more years of Bush............. well, we all know how unbearable that was. And now we're into another 4 years and it sucks as bad as we thought it would. He got to appoint 2 supreme court justices. He's continuing to destroy the environment. THe list goes on.

I can't help that I personally believe that Kerry let us down by not fighting that S.O.B. He promised 2000 wouldn't happen again. And when it did, he rolled out.

[blm]

164. Your actual complaint SHOULD be directed at the DEM PARTY - THEY are the

ones who were IN CHARGE OF SECURING THE VOTE.

They did NOT. They did not believe in machine fraud, so they did NOTHING To educate their election board members. Kerry was stuck with the dEm infrastructure that was allowed to collapse even FURTHER than the one that collapsed around Gore in 2000.

By directing all the blame and vitriol at Kerry you are letting the infrastructure escape further scrutiny. It should be the focus or more people will think like you and put a disproportionate amount of blame on the nominee instead of dealing with a collapsing infrastructure.

Kerry became the nominee in the spring of 2004 - he did not take on the job of the entire party - and still Kerry won - the Dem infrastructure was too weak to stop the GOPs from stealing the vote.

[salin]

166. too weak?

Note that I am referring to local and state folks as well as national infrastructure - but I would say the lack of attention to ensuring secure elections come from various combinations of the following sentiments:

- too naive,
-too afraid of being pegged by local repubs as being "kooky" by raising questions,
-too 'I'm in on the new "in" technology' psuedo hip,
-and yes, weak.

[blm]

167. That's it EXACTLY - This is why I think Dean needs to CONVENE every

election board member from all over the country and have them SCHOOLED on all of the issues they will actually need to face, and especially machine fraud.

That would be Dem party money WELL SPENT.

[salin]

174. agreed

:thumbsup:

[BlueIris]

158. Maybe you should learn to read and evaluate *real* news before '08.

Then base your decision about whom you will vote for on, you know, facts. And a valid interpretation of reality. Not propaganda, REAL NEWS. Maybe you should start with a brush-up in American history first, though. REAL history--not Reaganized bullshit you learned in 11th grade, actual history. Then compare it to the--oh, fuck it. Idiots like you are beyond hope. And if you ask me, you need to change your Conyers avatar to something else--as you evidently did not read one word of what his committee proved and published about the fat pile of election fraud that ravaged America in 2004. If you had read even a single word, there's no way you'd ever have embarrassed yourself with a post claiming Kerry (or anyone) could have "fought back harder" without an audience or a media outlet to reach them.

Those of us who spent hundreds of hours of our lives before and after the election (you know, when wimps like you threw your hats into the ring) investigating, documenting and protesting against the disgusting (and obvious) mound of vote fraud and media cover-up of said fraud don't have to rely on our fanciful, subjective beliefs about what Kerry did and didn't do as our candidate and president-elect--we know he's the best and because he is he won. We weep for you. MY GOD. LEARN TO READ.

Ack. Whatever. You know what? I pity you. You're going to have a rough 2008, sweetie, especially after whatever incompetent, misogyny-loving, conservative ass-kissing fake Democrat you've deemed, with your tragically limited understanding of the world, could be a better president that John Kerry DROPS LIKE A FLY (along with the rest of the "contenders") long before the convention and remains COWERING in SHAME in some undisclosed location through November.

I feel sorry for you, I really do. You clearly can't appreciate him or the magnificence of what he's already achieved, let alone what he will achieve in the White House. You won't get to enjoy the future like I will. Your brain isn't big enough.

[Imagevision]

159. I love Kerry, But, he promised me every vote would be counted

and the majority of folk know this clearly was not the case. I'll take Feingold over Kerry in a New York minute!!

[sandrakae]

170. People like you deserve President George W Bush.

THE REST OF US DESERVE JOHN KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yasmina27]

173. My husband

while he has no inside information about the Kerry campaign, believes that he either a 1)deliberately threw the election (by allowing the SB Liars et al. to pervade the MSM or 2)the DNC allowed this catastrophe to happen: because no one in their right mind would want to inherit the disaster that has become the *administration. It will be tough enough for whoever becomes POTUS in 08 (even harder in my opinion that in 04).

My husband is a life-long registered republican - who holds views of the original Eisenhower era republicans - he absolutely hates the neo-con repukes in power today. His father - gone these many years since 1986 - was a high level operative in the RNC ala Karl "Pig Boy" Rove. Hubby says his dad would have kicked Rove's ass into yesterday for the dirty tricks he's played.

But he also says (and his mom agrees) that there were instances were they deliberately sabotaged their own party's candidate by not sending out campaign fliers because they knew they could not win in what ever the particular race. So he was not above dirty tricks -he just had a "particular standard"

My sister-in-law swears she met * at the Pittsburgh GOP headquarters visiting with the Hillmans and Scaifes during the time that he was supposedly performing his duties in the TANG. Of course we have no pictures, so no proof.

BTW, Daddy-in-law dearest hated the whole BCEE.

[blm]

177. Check the reserach forum here at DU - there is a thread with all the data

on the Swift liars, and every move Kerry's camp made against them. You will be disgusted at how complicit the corporate media was in spreading the Swifts and their lies and how they ignored the efforts to get the truth out.

[progressivebydesign]

175. If he gets the nom. then you're helping to elect Jeb Bush..

or whomever they decree to be the nominee. Oh. are you one of those 'principled' voters who make sure that the democrats lose because your personal intersests aren't being served.. i.e. fuck the people who are suffering under republican rule, your needs are much more important? I pity you then...

I don't give a damn if they run Joe Lieberman as our nominee for prez.. I will hold my nose and vote, because these past 6 years have nearly done our country in. How much more misery do we have to suffer before some people stop putting their own needs ahead of the good of the country?

[wisteria]

176. Well he has my vote!!!! n/t