Kerry seeks common front with Bush

[54anickel]

Guess this is why Rove keeps hammering at Kerry's military record and anti-war stance. Sheesh, do people want a war-mongering admin?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-636907,curpg-1.cms

snip>
The apparent decision to refrain from confrontation over the war on terror and Iraq came as a series of opinion polls showed Kerry losing ground to Bush on national security issues as fears of a new terrorist strike on US soil and escalating violence in Iraq have prompted Americans to rally around their commander-in-chief.

A Washington Post- ABC News survey released earlier this week indicated Bush leading Kerry 48 percent to 43 percent, while a similar poll by USA Today , CNN and Gallup showed the president 50 per cent to 44 per cent.

What's more, the Washington Post-ABC News poll indicated that 58 per cent versus 37 per cent of Americans trusted Bush to do a better job than Kerry on terrorism, and 52 per cent versus 41 per cent believed the sitting president would handle Iraq better.

Speaking in Kansas City, Missouri, Vice President Richard Cheney moved forcefully to draw a clear distinction between the administration and its Democratic opponent, arguing that Kerry's was "not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander-in-chief in this time of testing for our country."

more...

[Briarius]

1. Americans are blind, and Cheney is a $#%^

*edit* Gosh darn it, I forgot the logout button AGAIN. This is LynzM :) Doh!


"not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander-in-chief in this time of testing for our country".... Um, and you're one to talk, Dick? What planet are these guys living on??? I'm not even going to go into it, I think I could rant for pages, LOL

I'd love to ask all those people who think Bush is doing a good job against terrorism what, exactly, he's done to fight it. Betcha most of them say "Iraq", anyway....

Sorry, feeling awfully cynical this morning...

[ima_sinnic]

2. sheesh . . . IF ONLY Kerry would come out something else

--he's not offering anything the people can believe in as an alternative to Georgie's fraud war, so what else can they do but stay with The Chimp?

[54anickel]

3. This quote sort of ticks me off -

"We share the same goal of total victory," Kerry declared, addressing an annual convention of the Newspaper Association of America. "And you can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

How do you define total victory in a war on "terrorism"?
"No matter who wins"? WTF?

He goes on about what he would have done differently in Afghanistan, and that's good, but also water under the bridge. What will he do differently in the future? What is his definition of "the war against terror"?

[ima_sinnic]

4. to say I am "disappointed" in Kerry would be an understatement

. . . it so reeks of the disappointing way successive presidents kept Vietnam going with lies and propaganda. His antiwar activities during Vietnam apparently were nothing but a fabrication. He retained no antiwar, antifraud, antilie fervor whatsoever.

[stepnw1f]

80. Disappointed?

Wait another 4 years. You won't need to feel disappointed, just desperate.

[hang a left]

8. No matter who wins the presidential election, we're fucked?

Someone give me a reason to go on.

"No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

[Lorien]

34. It's a piss poor statement because

the "no matter who" part makes it sound as if Bush* is equally strong-Bush* has CUT security spending domestically and is CREATING new terrorists abroad-Kerry need to point this out and let it be known that the American people will be LESS SAFE if they stick with Bush* than if they vote him into office.Geez- is his campaign manager a Rove operative?

[Nlighten1]

17. Was Ralph Nader right?

Is there a difference between the two parties? Enough worth getting excited about? Any more talk like this from Kerry and I might just vote for Bush. Four more years of Bush and there will be no way the media and the Democrats will be able to cover for him.

[BigDaddyLove]

19. Four more years of Bush and there will be.........

no media and no Democrats left to cover for them.

[Nlighten1]

32. Exactly...

Let loose the dogs of revolution!

[dennis4868]

53. I think we already....

lost the media "RIP 2000"

[Lorien]

31. Like "total victory" in the war on drugs?

An adult knows that this can't happen, but in politics, what is said is what popular with the greatest percent of the population. In this case, the greatest percent aren't strong, intelligent, courageous Americans, but gullible thumbsucking ignorant bedwetters! Kerry needs to set the dialog by speaking the truth about the Iraq war and it's lack of a connection to 9-11, otherwise I'm afraid he'll leave the base uninspired enough to stay home on election day.

[Barkley]

30. I agree. Your statements will be the election's post-mordem.

[bemildred]

5. Complete, utter horseshit. nt

[5X]

6. and yet dems will blame nader

when kerry loses to the right-wing neocon assholes he
hopes to emulate.

[Solidarity]

7. Yup

Yup. That's called passing the buck.

[Tuttle]

10. Excuse me: which party do you belong to?

"and yet dems will blame nader"

This sounds curiously like something I might read at another website - not named DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

As to the original post: I always get my news from Indian websites - don't you? ;-)

Tut-tut

[5X]

12. registered democrat, and always voted democrat

I am also proud to call myself a liberal, not running from it
or pretending to be centrist. if kerry would only own up to his
own voting record instead of trying to sound like another one of
the neocons, he just might yet get my vote.

[hippywife]

50. Amen!

2002 already proved the Dems can't win when they try to emulate the opposition. Some people have yet to learn that lesson.

Nader got the votes he did in 2000 because the Dems failed to excite their base and those that don't feel that voting amounts to much because things never change.

Kerry isn't exciting the base of Dems...Bush is. That's what ABB is all about, not who has presented the starkest difference to the insanity in the White House. It's fear driving this nomination, nothing more. Yes anyone is better than Bush but in all the fear of a lame duck neocon administration, we've neglected to put forward the best ideology of our party.

On Edit: Here's some information for folks to chew on:

Published in the May, 2004 issue of The Progressive
When Kerry Was Liberal
by Ruth Conniff


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-14.htm

A couple of things to know about the National Journal rankings: Kerry rated number one last year for the first time in more than a decade. Not coincidentally, 2003 was also the year he missed thirty-seven of the sixty-two votes tallied in the ranking process because he was out on the campaign trail.

What was not included in the National Journal rankings is at least as important as what was. The Journal looks at votes cast by Senators and Representatives in three areas: economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry missed all the 2003 votes in two of the three categories. So his ranking is based entirely on economic policy. Trade, an area where Kerry has always been at odds with the Democratic base, barely showed up on the radar screen. Some of the most significant votes he cast on the issue--for NAFTA, Fast Track, and normal trade relations with China--did not take place in 2003. On the most important trade votes in 2003, such as dropping trade barriers with Africa and the Caribbean, and free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, Kerry was a no-show.

Kerry isn't the only one whose record seems distorted in the National Journal. Some of the most conservative members of Congress found themselves rated as moderates because of their votes opposing the President's Medicare plan, supplemental appropriations for the reconstruction of Iraq, and the drug war in South America, all of which they viewed as wasteful government spending. Representative Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, a proud rightwinger who was rated among the moderates in 2003, told the National Journal it should change its ratings system.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. Nader got the votes that he did

because third party candidates usually end up finding a "dissatisfied" voter base that they can turn into a percentage point or two. However, Nader's performance nationwide (2-3%) was lethargic compared to some previous third party candidates like Ross Perot (15%), John Anderson (6%) and George Wallace (won five states).

[hippywife]

55. And in addition to them

explain the millions of people eligible to vote who didn't bother.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm

There will always be a certain number of people that don't vote for whatever reason, but when 100,000,000, plus people(51,000,000 plus who are actually registered) don't vote that means there is a huge number who feel that it is a mindless, futile exercise.

That means that no one of any party gave them ample enough reason to turn out.

That makes Nader's few hundred thousand look pretty paltry by comparison.

Voter turnout this year will probably set records for recent elections but not because of the inspiration coming from the Dem nominee, but the fear of another four years of Bush. He is the one who is inspiring the base to come out. Again, that pretty well defines the thought process behind the ABB movement. It's the mantra of the Dem party not because they are inspired by the party nominee.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. There has always been a large segment of the population

that doesn't vote. I don't have the hard data in front of me, but I have read that the greatest turnout in an American presidential election was less than 70%. Unless there is some sort of calamity like a depression, a lot of people just don't care, no matter who the nominee is.

[hippywife]

70. But when fully half of your electorate

and a third of registered voters are either disenfranchised or disenchanted, someone isn't doing their job. I agree a portion of people don't vote because they don't care. I posit that the greater number is representative of those who feel it doesn't make a difference if they vote or not, nothing changes. I can't say that I don't see where they are coming from.




Looks like the greatest spike in voter turnout was when Reagan inspired so many Dems to vote Republican. How does the Dem party spin that bit? There was no Nader to blame then, only Carter who was so hobbled and manipulated by Republican underhandedness.

[Art_from_Ark]

99. You are forgetting about John Anderson

who, as the American Independent Party candidate, siphoned about 6% of the votes (including mine) away from Carter in 1980. I acatually believed at that time that there was no difference between Reagan and Carter:argh:

After that, I swore I would never again vote for a third party presidential candidate.
Ever.

[54anickel]

18. Actually, yes I get a LOT if my news from Non-US sources.

[Zhade]

60. You do realize this website is not open to Democrats alone, right?

As it says in the About section, progressives of every stripe, including Greens and Socialists, are welcome here.

[0007]

11. Hope 33 is your lucky number

[Don Claybrook]

38. What does that mean?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you're looking for a tombstone because someone is espousing a progressive point of view. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

[hippywife]

51. Knee-jerk response

without anything constructive in the way of debate of the point made?

[kori]

36. Nader needs to remember

That had he not run last time Gore would be President. There would be no war in Iraq. There would not be 600+ dead soldiers. At Nader's feet rests all the actions of this administration. Will he and his supporters repeat history? Will they then rail how horrible Bush is in 2005 or 2006 0r 2007 as he pushes his generational war into Syria or Iran? We all worry how to end this mistake called Iraq and we disagree on how it should be ended and when, but none of us even Nader I believe, want to see this spread and see another war and maybe a third. That is what is at stake. All of you leaning toward Nader AND especially Nader himself needs to remember that.

[54anickel]

40. Sorry, I don't see anyone leaning toward Nader in these posts so far.

And we don't know what would be different if Gore would have won, we can speculate, but we cannot truly know.

Since you brought up the the subject, was Nader really the blame for Gore's loss? I've seen discussions here before on this stating that Gore should have fought that whole mess in Florida a bit harder.

I would not vote for Nader personally, but I do believe that he, or anyone else, has every right to run if that is what they choose to do.

[kori]

43. Yes we can speculate

I doubt very much that Gore would have taken us to war looking for Iraq's WMD. Were there other reasons to go? Would Gore have stayed more focused on terrorism as Richard Clarke seemed to indicate Clinton was. Maybe the attacks on the 9-11 would not have happened. Maybe other attacks would have happened.

I also agree that anyone had the right to run. But not Nader not this time. I really wish Pat Buchanan would jump back in the race.

Should Gore have fought harder? I don't know, there was a stacked deck against him and I am not sure what more he could have done knowing the Supremes would be split 5-4 and the Republican House would have certified a Republican slate of electoral voters. I also do not know how many of the 15,000 votes Nader got in Florida would have gone to Gore. Maybe none of them would have voted at all, I guess its possible a few would have voted for Bush. However if only 10% of those would have voted for Gore there would not have been the need for a Democrat recount in Florida at all. I suspect very strongly at least 10% would have pulled Gores lever.

I am sorry, I had a lot of respect for Ralph Nader in the past. I had respect for him in his run in 2000. I have no respect for him repeating that mistake knowing the stakes to be so high. I can only assume his ego has taken control of his brain. I am also not writing anything here I have not already written to Nader via his election committee when he was looking for money.

[TruthIsAll]

48. Check your facts. Nader got 96,000 votes in FL.

Gore would have won at least 2/3.

That's a 30,000 plurality in a state Gore "lost" by 537.

And there were at least 100,000 votes lost to disenfranchising of felons (mostly black), spoiling Gore votes by double and triple-punching, the Butterfly ballot (Jews for Buchanan), illegal, late Bush absentee/military votes, etc.

Florida 2000: The worst election fraud in our history.

SCOTUS: installing a thief and a coward to the presidency. The worst judicial crime in our history.

9/11: The worst case of Presidential incompetence in our history (LIHOP/MIHOP?)

Iraq: Next to Viet Nam, the worst military adventure in our history.

Jobs: The worst 4-year job loss in our history.

Halliburton/Cheney: The worst conflict of interest/corruption/warmongering in our history.

Outing of Valerie Plame: The only time in the history of the CIA in which a CIA operative was outed by the White House. It was not the worst case of treason, it was the only case of this type.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[kori]

101. You are right I was working from memory, faulty at best but....

That just makes the original point better. Thank you

[ikojo]

64. Gore and the Democrats could have challenged

the vote in Florida. They could have FORCEFULLY spoken out against the disenfranchisement of thousands of black Floridians who were denied the right to vote. Instead they stood aside, once again taking black votes for granted. They better wake up because the Green Party is doing MASSIVE outreach to the lower middle class black community.

No, instead they were more interested in appearing civil when they know that if the tables were reversed the pugs would have pulled out all the stops to challenge a Gore presidency.

If Gore had won and EVERYTHING since Jan 20, 2001 happened exactly as it has happened under * Pugs would not have done the following:
-given President Gore the IWR
-voted for the PATRIOT Act
-campaign for Gore's re-election (a la Zell Miller and Co.)
-give President Gore $87 BILLION dollars to fight a war

The pugs WOULD HAVE done the following:
-crippled a Gore administration by endlessly investigating the 2000 vote.

Then WHY are the Dems trying their hardest to be JUST LIKE THE PUGS? Of all people to NOT emulate it would be *!

This is why MILLIONS stay home on election day.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Who voted for the Iraq War Resolution and PATRIOT Act?

The German Reichstag voted to give Hitler dictatorial powers in 1933. They are as responsible for the crimes of the Third Reich as the concentration camp guards.

Who voted for the Iraq War Resolution and PATRIOT Act? They are as responsible for the war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere and our loss of civil liberties as the Bush regime.

[kori]

47. I would hate to argue with a fellow Hoosier

So I will not. There is plenty of blame to go around.

I just finished Dean's book "Worse than Watergate" It is very obvious that Congress was steamrolled with the war resolution. Should Democrats have gone along with the initial resolution? No, but it was NOT a resolution to go immediately to war. In essence they trusted Bush to do as instructed. Republicans will say he did, hell Joe Lieberman may say he did. I do not and there is plenty of room for that statement. As far as the Patriot Act, it was to be a limited time special powers bill, one that probably was not needed. I am also certain it has been used not the way it should have been. It was a reaction to the attacks, a bad reaction.

I will not make any more excuses. What I do know is Bush must be stopped and apparently Kerry is the only other choice. I hope and pray Ralph sees that this time.

[Zhade]

88. "In essence they trusted Bush to do as instructed. "

And what fools - especially with combined decades' worth of experience - trust ANY member of the b*sh family?

This is the same family who helped fund Hitler - and this has been an established fact since Prescott b*sh's business assets were seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act over 60 years ago!

Kerry helped investigate BCCI and Iran-Contra. He knows better than to trust the b*sh family and their associates...yet he trusted a "president" who stole his way into power and lied from Day One?

Bullshit. I don't buy that for a second. Not when millions of people like myself around the world who listened to people like Scott Ritter knew Iraq was no threat and there was a 95% chance that Hussein had zero WMD, and whatever bio and chemical weapons he might have had would have been useless thanks to their limited shelf life.

No, I still contend that Kerry cast what he and other Dems considered a politically expedient vote. Of course, aligning themselves with the Republicans in 2002 backfired, and we lost our majority in Congress. To be sure, there was theft (Saxby Chambliss and Rob-Georgia, anyone?) and death (Wellstone is still missed), but the Dems shot themselves in the foot by playing along with the Republican agenda - an agenda which was, and still is, illegal and immoral.

[kori]

100. This is far from my original point but......

It is a little bit of an exaggeration to state Prescott Bush's business assets were seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act over 60 years ago. If I remember my history correctly it was his one share of the Union Banking Corporation that were seized not his entire business assets. Prescott Bush did not have a lot of money until he married the Walker daughter (George senior carries his mothers family name). The Walkers were all tied up with the Harriman family, originally of the Union Pacific Railroad and the hunter of Butch and Sundance. They along with other financiers bankrolled the re-industrialization of Germany after WW1. Anyway, off the point slightly, and since I am doing this by memory I must state that there were also German interests that were seized in several other corporations that the Walkers, Harriman and thusly Prescott Bush were involved in or helped manage, but the assets of US investors were left alone. Should it all have been seized, maybe, however this same group helped with the industrialization of America in World War 2. Money loves death and destruction. I figured when I originally read the account of these seizures that they were let off the hook by rolling over on other German investments to the American intelligence machine of the time. That is just my speculation. Ironically this same group helped revive the Soviet oil industry prior to WW2, but I do not recall anyone accusing them of being communists.

I have read a number of times on this site that Gore should have done this or done that to keep the election fight going. I wish I did not have to but, I disagree. First if you remember at the time he was losing support, Americans do not like Sore Losers. That was how it was being played. Beyond that however, the legal remedies were very limited after the Supreme Court 5-4 decision. The Republican legislature would have certified the Republican electoral slate. The Democrats could have put up their own slate for the Federal legislature to certify, however since that also was Republican I think we can assume which slate would have been certified to cast the actual electoral ballots. Could Gore have continued to speak out? Yes, and for that silence I find fault. However that said, I do not know what his own state of mind was. So I find fault with him for his silence, but frankly not much.

Prior to the actual election of 2000 I did not mind the Green Party run with Nader as their candidate. I wanted a dialog on the environment. Although I would not pull their lever their right to run a candidate was not a problem to me then. My original point was, before I found out I was outside DU rhetoric, for Nader NOT to repeat the same mistake again AND for the Green party not to make the same mistake. IT is to important this time. We need to stay focused and united and not rip pieces off of the liberal block this election. What Kerry will or will not do about Iraq is important, but to me it is more important to stop Bush's crowd NOW before we find ourselves in Syria or Iran or God knows where in this new "Generational War" they are so fond of.

[Zhade]

61. Gore won, and the election was stolen from him.

I cannot fathom how you can make your way to DU - which was founded due to the fact that b*sh was not legally elected - and then complain that Gore "lost" because of Nader.

Gore. Never. Lost.

[kori]

63. OK I can go with that

The election was stolen or hijacked or whatever, barely within any confines that may be considered legal. Nader, who did have a right to run, facilitated that, unknowingly, in 2000. My only point was do not repeat the mistake again. Is that more in keeping with current DU thinking?

[Zhade]

84. It's more in keeping with the reality of what happened, yes.

"...barely within any confines that may be considered legal."

Actually, no, it was not within the confines of legality whatsoever. If you haven't yet, read Greg Palast - his investigation of what happened before, during, and after the (s)election are documented and damning.

Blaming Nader for 2000 is precisely what those who stole the election want us to do. It's a red herring.

Yes, Nader did make it easier to steal the election. However, let's not forget that the election was stolen. The blame rests on them, not Nader, no matter how much some hate him now for running.

I don't agree with his run. I wish he had not decided to run. He has the right, but I still wish that he had decided otherwise. Even when I agree with a lot of his points, I don't particularly like or trust Nader much.

[MisterP]

41. well, Nader is our analogue to Clinton's thing:

if something bad happens, blame Nader/"Clenis"

[Wells]

77. Kerry must have an Iraq position at Bush's level....

...but, there should be no doubt that he will redirect forces toward international support and pullout. Attacking Kerry is what Neo-con propaganda is designed to do. Some people fall for it, but not most.

DON'T BELIEVE CORPORATE POLLS!

!! BUSH IS GOING TO LOSE !!

Ask yourself, how many democrats have switched to Bush? The answer is zero. Ask how many Moderates have switched from Bush to ABB? The answer is millions. The close race of 2000 will not be repeated. We should expect a landslide for Kerry.

Dear Naderites, stop falling into neo-con traps. Nader will not get even 1/8 the voters of 4 years ago.

[Tellurian]

9. Ha-Ha-Ha-Cheney...

"Vice President Richard Cheney moved forcefully to draw a clear distinction between the administration and its Democratic opponent, arguing that Kerry's was "not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander-in-chief in this time of testing for our country."

Cheney can hear the squeaking of the Halliburton spigot being shut off..

As far as his comment:

We're still waiting for JR to prove himself worthy of being the president of these United States.

[mulethree]

23. why all this Cheney/Halliburton crud?

everyone knows he's not Halliburton anymore.
He sold all his stock before he became VP

It's just a coincidence that he managed to sell it at it's peak
for $55 before it crashed to $18

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7547&forum=DCForumID38

[leesa]

29. He is still receiving about 750,000 annually from them

He got them the gigs in Afghanistan and Iraq and is still being paid off for his favors.

[dennis4868]

54. HE ALSO HAS...

STOCK OPTIONS!

[Tellurian]

26. Think Kellogg, Brown and Root...

they won (sheesh) the contracts for Iraq.

KBR= Halliburton subsidiary.

[truth2power]

13. I got my wake-up call on Kerry

last week when I called his Senate office about this very thing (refraining from confrontation over the war) and the gentleman on the other end lectured me in no uncertain terms about how we need to, in substance, stay the course. I came away from that phone conversation feeling betrayed.

Many on this board don't want to discuss Kerry's flaws and some even go so far as to imply that anyone who says anything negative about Kerry is a freeper. I'm not so stupid as to believe that we really have anywhere else to go, but it's damned discouraging when it seems like Kerry is working to see how "Bush-lite" he can be.

I have a lot of questions regarding Kerry. If this is what he looks like on the war, how can we feel any assurance that he'll roll back the Patriot Act or work to repair the Medicare/prescription program's giveaway to big pharma.

Also, and this has been asked frequently here, but never answered as far as I can tell, how did Kerry seem to come from behind all of sudden in the primaries to be the presumptive nominee?

[11bravo1986]

14. Not to sound...

simple-minded but "ANYONE BUT BUSH" is my mantra in 2004. I would rather have my pet in office than a lunatic!

[truth2power]

15. Just to clarify...

I wasn't saying that anyone who is ABB is stupid or simple-minded. Just the opposite. I was saying that I am not totally stupid. I know the choice is going to come down to either Bush or, presumably, Kerry. Obviously, I will vote for Kerry if he is the nominee, as it looks to be the case. I may, however, have to hold my nose as I do so. I am not happy with Kerry right now.

[BigDaddyLove]

21. Howdy..........

and welcome to DU!!!!

:toast:

I too would rather have your pet in office than Bush.

[11bravo1986]

25. LOL

Thanks bigdaddylove, I have trolled this board for about a year now and finally got my account.

I also visit hannity.com as 11bravo, and beleive it or not there are many, I'll call them true patriots who dominate the board there with logical and fact backed information that clearly paints the true picture of where we are today in US because of the incompetent, lying and utterely corrupt Bush administration.

Thanks again for the welcome!

[sandnsea]

16. When did he say "get out of Iraq"?

He's never said that so why would you feel betrayed? What percentage of Americans think we need to just get out of Iraq and let chaos reign? Why do you think it's a great idea to let it turn into another Afghanistan and have the people have to live like that? Bush totally screwed it up, why wouldn't Kerry think it's the responsible thing to do to bring the UN in and fix it correctly?

[11bravo1986]

22. I agree...

we started this mess we have to finish it. I think Kerry has stated his approach to cleaning up the Iraq tragedy. Get the U.N. involved, use our forces for security and create a true world coallition that will have legitimacy.

We here at the DU know that this was a PNAC blueprint to assure American hedgeomony in the 21st century. However what those idiots didn't realize is that the rest of the world would not sit idlely by and just let us begin our imperial conquest of the ME. They also didn't seem to understand that the American people who have their eyes open and thier flag up on a pole rather than draped across thier body, would not be fooled into thinking we are "liberating" an oppressed peoples.

I just hope that this election is not decided by diebold, and right wing thugs stationed at poles who will not allow "brown" people to vote.

[IndianaGreen]

28. You are right, Kerry never said he was going to get us out of Iraq!

When Nixon turned a Democratic war into a Republican war in 1969, he used "stay the course," have "peace with honor," and "honor the fallen" as justification for continuing to wage war in Vietnam while "Vietnamizing" the conflict.

The roles are now reversed with the bulk of the Democratic establishment wanting to turn a Republican war into a Democratic war in order to "stay the course," have "peace with honor," and "honor the fallen" as justification for continuing to wage war in Iraq while "de-Americanizing" the conflict.

I don't know why some have chosen to forget the lessons of Vietnam, but understand this: if we stay in Iraq, the only thing we will accomplish is to add more names to a future war memorial.

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, April 18, 2004

MR. RUSSERT: But do you have a plan to deal with Iraq? This is what you...

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what you wrote in The Washington Post last Tuesday: "Our country has committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission."

SEN. KERRY: Yes, we will.

<snip>

MR. RUSSERT: If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: It depends on what the situation is you find on the ground on January 20th of 2005.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

[truth2power]

45. sandnsea..

"What percentage of Americans think we need to just get out of Iraq and let chaos reign? Why do you think it's a great idea to let it turn into another Afghanistan and have the people have to live like that?"

...get out and let chaos reign? So it's not chaos now? They're burying their dead in soccer stadiums. Mass graves courtesy of the US "liberators". I fail to see how their quality of life could be much worse - unless we dropped a nuke on 'em. 'Course, I wouldn't put that past the Chimp.

We can get out now or wait until they drive us out, and drive us out they will! If we persist, it will come to the same result and by that time our casualty numbers will be in the thousands.

As far as Kerry not saying we were going to get out, I thought I heard him say awhile back that we should turn it over to the UN. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[Barkley]

33. "truth2power" is a good pseudo-name for you!

You raise some very important points.

I have friends who really want to get involved in Kerry's election campaign but find his Iraq stance too much like Bush's.

Going along with Bush and giving him the IRQ in 2002 hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections. You would have thought they'd learned their lesson by now.

[Lorien]

35. As for your last question

the media and Diebold played a big role in that, IMHO. Granted, Dean's exhausted "meltdown" didn't help him, but the media has turned a blide eye to the frequent flip outs and confidence reducting behaviour/ statements/actions by Bush*. The media will certainly "Gore and Dean" Kerry right before the election, too. Kevin Philips is right; America is now a country by the Rich, of the Rich, and for the Rich-a populist hasn't got a chance here anymore. :-(

[tedzbear]

39. Kerry makes me nervous...

...and I don't know yet what I'll do come November. A lot could change by then.
I am appalled by his willingness to "stay the course" in Iraq instead of a gradual withdrawal and complete handover to the UN. That is the only solution that will have any legitimacy IMHO.

A dear friend of mine will vote for Kerry only because of the specter of a Bush packed Supreme Court, and the environment. I can see her point and I am juggling my concern for Iraq with these other two dilemmas.

What to do? What to do? Vote Kerry? Fuck Kerry and vote Green? Vote Nader?

I suppose if I vote like I really want to and Bush wins as a result we can always organize a revolution and hit the streets. I am game for that.

:bounce:

[Lorien]

56. Who is "We", and why do you think we'll be allowed

to "hit the streets" if Bush* gets a second term? Do you think that he or anyone in the GOP gives a rat's ass about what any of us think? What, exactly, would YOU do to cause a revolution? Do you honestly think other Americans will turn off "survivor" long enough to join you?

Look, I don't like Kerry much at all, but I despise Bush; he's a threat to every life form on earth. The Iraq war is one thing, but global climate change could very well make even that look like a cakewalk in comparison. Voting for Nader makes one feel smug and self satisfied, but it changes nothing for the better. As Arianna Huffington says "you have to put out the fire before you start redecorating". Write to Kerry or call his office and voice your concerns, but send Bush* back to Crawford if you have even the slightest attachment to this country and the world.

[tedzbear]

59. No, you write to Kerry and tell him not to alienate the anti-war voters.

I will vote for the candidate who best represents my views. If you don't like it, why don't you move to the green zone in Iraq. I hear they pipe in clean air there.

:bounce:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[tedzbear]

85. How nice. You got my sarcasm.

I find your position equally absurd, girlfriend.

tedthebear vs. Jen6 = :nuke:

[Lorien]

86. Lol!

:P

[Zhade]

89. Wait - you claim without proof that Kerry was selected by DIEBOLD...

...and you suggest Ted is not a liberal, yet his response is absurd?

Hell, I don't like or trust Kerry, and even I don't claim he was 'Diebolded' into candidacy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. Re: your question.

<H>ow did Kerry seem to come from behind all of sudden in the primaries to be the presumptive nominee?

One word: Iowa.

Reason 1, and maybe most important, Kerry placed much of his campaign effort and money into Iowa in the few days preceding the caucus. A politically smart move to get the late-breaking vote.

Reason 2. Insider vs. Outsider deals. Gephardt and Kerry agree to swap delegates, as do Kucinich and Edwards. The net effect being to cut off delegates to Dean, Braun, Sharpton and Clark(if he had been a running a campaign there).

Reason 3. Suicide attacks. Gephardt gears his machine to target Dean in the run-up to the caucus. Dean has to respond. Iowa voters are turned off by the "dirty" politics and turn to the "clean" candidates Kerry and Edwards. Proof of the suicide attack /Insider vs. Outsider theories is born out by watching the Dem debates pre-primary and post-primary. When Dean was considered the frontrunner he was hammered by all the candidates in the debates. This was to be expected, it makes sense to go after the guy in the lead. After Kerry became the de facto frontrunner after Iowa and New Hampshire, this concerted effort was not then turned on Kerry in subsequent debates. He had to deal with a fraction of the questioning that Dean did by his fellow candidates. He got the kid gloves treatment. The Washington boys circled their wagons.

Reason 4. Dirty tricks. Robo-calls. Flyers. Misdirection of caucus sites. Campaign insiders in the caucuses brokering deals via cell phones.

The Iowa results, along with the ubiquitous "Electability" meme and the manufactured "Dean Scream" forwarded by the media, begat New Hampshire, and so on.


Voila, safe corporate candidate.

[54anickel]

69. Your comment "Voila, safe corporate candidate", is exactly what I have

feared the most.

[truth2power]

71. thanks, Rummy

That's the most lucid explanation I've seen so far. I remember waking up one morning and thinking WTF? what did I miss? All of a sudden Kerry was the presumptive nominee.

Ever since, the thought that's been running through my head is what Mike Ruppert said:

"The Republicans, of course, are sharpening up a campaign that will portray George W. Bush as the "Hero of 9/11", "The Protector of the American Economy", "The Savior of the Free World", "A Man Who Loves God", and "The Man Who Cut Taxes". Electroshock therapy might be useful for these people."

"But is it any less warranted for people who believe that everything will be fine if there is better theme music in the background, while none of the real offenses of the past two years are addressed or undone?"

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html

edit> forgot link

[sandnsea]

20. Masochists??

I think people around here are. Where's the Zogby poll which is 47-44 Kerry? Or the Fox poll that has them tied? How come only negativity? Is the Kerry hatred so great that people are subconsciously rooting for him to lose to Bush?

[BigDaddyLove]

24. Subconsciously rooting for him to lose...........

that's interesting, as I was thinking the very same thing.

Look at the Republicans, they had 8 years of fodder for their cannons, 8 years to organize and create their massive machines, and now that they are in control of everything they are finding it increasingly hard to find shit to bitch about.

Since Bush took office, Democrats have gotten more united and fired up than anytime that I'm aware of (granted I have a somewhat limited perspective; age and all that) against the Great Satan. What happens when Kerry wins?...aside from a return to peace and prosperity in America, I'm am seriously fearful that we Democrats might become complacent without a force to rail against.

This (in my opinion) is a great time to be a Democrat, and on some level there may indeed be some strange desire to stay angry, and to always have a ready target for that anger....namely Bush.

[sandnsea]

27. "force to rail against"

I've been floating that idea for a while. When I think about the Democrats who beat Republicans, it seems the people were riled up and ready to "throw the bums out". FDR against Hoover. Kennedy against the 50's economic malaise. Carter against the Nixon stink. Clinton against economic disaster and the whole "term limits" of the time. I think Democrats don't get riled up to vote unless they're voting against something. Or maybe we're just inclined to criticize government all the time, which explains the anti-Kerry sentiment. But it's only when it gets really bad, and that's usually with a Republican Presidency, that we ban together to "throw the bums out".

I hope we don't get complacent after this election, even with Kerry in office, we can't afford to. I think he'll handle foreign policy just fine. He better handle trade and domestic policy equally well or I'll be the first one with my sleeping bag, camping out on the Mall until he does. We've got to change the course of the economy in this country and make it work for the workers again.

[truth2power]

46. Hey BigDaddy

Just wanted to say I've always liked your sig pic. I had a kitty who would have let me do that. She was a sweetie! I really miss her. :cry:

[Lorien]

37. You mistake fear for hatred

We fear that his tactics will cause him to lose the election. We point this out on a public forum because it may be read by some of those working for Kerry, or it may inspire some of us to call Kerry's office ourselves and demand to know why he seems hellbent on political suicide at a time when , more than at any other, we need a strong democratic candidate for President. People here DESPERATELY want him to win-and that why this crap pisses us off-our future is on the line here, and it feels like Kerry is the one who subconciously wants to lose!

[Avalon Sparks]

44. This is just some attempt...

This is just an attempt to make Kerry and Bush seem the same - probably brought to you by the Nader folks.

[Voltaire99]

49. Who's surprised? The price of appeasement is being paid

This is what you get when, after 9/11, your party collapses into disgraceful and spineless support of the incumbent.

If only I had a penny for every time a Democrat appeared on TV saying "the president is doing a good job on the war on terror"!

Guess what? People were listening. And it will take a lot of undoing--a lot of gutsy political talk--to pry them loose from the conclusions about Bush that Democrats helped to cement.

Here's a hint, John Kerry: better get started soon.

[young_at_heart]

73. Tom Daschle's supportive comments come to mind

He is so ineffective....we need a very forceful person for his position. One can only wonder if the Dems will ever get their act together. There must be someone who can tackle the high level of nastiness!

[robbedvoter]

57. Please! respect me as much as you respect W"

Damn, I've been trying hard to actually respect this guy, but if he wants the W treatment from me...How can he give up the 911 liability like that?
Not really surprised, but...

[bemildred]

58. Hey, if Kerry doesn't want to win, I'll write in Dean.

Bush is a sitting duck. He fucks up everything he touches.
He NEEDS to be attacked. This reminds me of 2000, picking
Lieberman for VP, "distancing" Gore from Clinton, all the
weasely bullshit when we need forthright speech and leadership.

[robbedvoter]

62. Lemme see: stolen election is a stupid thing, let's invade Iraq, W is

as good on terra as I intend to be - why bother to vote for this guy again?

[nolabels]

66. Kerry seems to be morphing into the Bushlite as some suspected

I am finding it hard to see real differences on a lot of things.

What ever happens, I am prepared in spirit and foresight. I would say Damn the DLC to Hell, but I don't think I would be the only one when and if that time comes. Okay you say pro-choice etc, yada yada. Kerry gets the nomination on his strong suit of defense and foreign affairs and totally abandons it to the point of giving deference to his opponent. If that is not disheartening I don't know what is.

The Dem's have gone from Gore saying "Well okay, I guess, since the SCOTUS says it's fair" (anybody for some duck hunting). To the point of saying whatever fool War bushco wants to get us in is okay.

If that is not total abdication of standing up, I don't Know what is

[Roy]

67. Actually.... its the Al Gore Syndrome

Mr Gore listened too much to these right wing pundits in the media suggesting to him what he should do and say. And, he packaged his message and actions based on rigged right wing polls, forgetting that these entities were out to defeat him.

It looks like Mr. Kerry is falling into the same trap, and dancing too often with other than those who brought him to the ball.

[truth2power]

72. Yes, as Molly Ivins said,

"You dance with them what brung 'ya."

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. Do you have any idea how much a presidential campaign spends on polling?

Gore undoubtably had access to accurate polling data. Any presidential or serious congressional campaign does their own polling.

[Roy]

90. Sure, I have some idea...

But, I would be surprised if dems internal poll shows the same results as the rigged polls brandished by the media.

It was disheatening to say the least, last campaign to listen to Fred Barnes, Britt Hume and Co. say what Al Gore should do and what positions to stand on, and then the next day hear from Mr Gore the same things (nearly verbatim).

Mr Kerrys' base and dis-affected voters hearing him oppose Bushs' policies are what got him to this point.

When they hear him align himself with those same and similar policies to placate some center right voters, can cause many to throw up their hands and say whats the use (as evident in some of the post in this and other threads)

Right wingers will NEVER support Mr. Kerry, moderates will only support him to oppose Bush or if Mr Kerry takes the correct stand on issues.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. Kerry can't win by endorsing Ws foreign policy

What in the fuck is he thinking?

[davhill]

78. He is Undermining Rove's Attack Plan

They would love to paint Kerry as peacenik. By pretending to make a show of unity with Bush Kerry avoids that corner. The only possible downside is driving to many Democratic voters to Nader. I guess the campaign has made that gamble. Once he is in, Kerry can be his own man and will have lost none of his negotiating position to bring the war to a swift end.

[nolabels]

79. Kerry can be his own man once everybody says it's okay

This is leadership?

I cannot buy it, but if you want it your way, you got it. Not much any one else can do except help in filling ranks of focus groups.

Btw why is it only 39% percent of the eligible voters put the last congress in office?



http://www.peacenowar.net/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. Isn't it really 19.6%?

A slight majority of 39%.

[nolabels]

97. The entire congress was put into office with that

If your referring to 19.6% that was or is used to control the totality of the rest of our government I guess you would be correct. That percentage would go even lower if others were figured in (say like children who have no say in it yet)

We the people do not have any real say in government, the whole lot of them have been pre-inspected, selected and directed to make sure the regular Joes get neglected and the purchasers stay unaffected.

[stepnw1f]

81. People Keep Forgetting

that this is politics. You don't play the obvious hand in any gamble. That's the nature of the beast. I would rather have complete transparency on all actions of politicians, but that's just not the case. If Bush does not turn people off to the point where they feel compelled to vote for Kerry, just to get rid of Bush, then nothing will.

Democracy is but a dream, we came close to it's principals and ideals, however that dream just may die in November 2004. Choices, choices. So many so little time. Forget a third party, we are on the way to a single one.

[nolabels]

83. You want to play underhanded politics, this is insane when you......

already have a majority if you did what most would feel to be the correct and moral thing to do.

I refuse to relinquish my right to protest. Being critical of something that being shoved down your throat is one of them inalienable rights they were talking about. You might not enjoy it, but we have to do it and I haven't of heard of too many that really take pleasure in it either.

The ones that it effects more directly might have something to say about it also



http://www.peacenowar.net/

[tedzbear]

87. Right on!!!!!!!!!!

A poll in the L.A. Times today said that most Americans support the Patriotic Act and that Kerry is being advised to tone down his resistance to it by his handlers.

I'm sorry but I'm not trusting enough to believe that what right wing Kerry says now will change once liberal Kerry magically appears after the election. I did not hit the streets in protest last year (including every Friday in local protests) just to watch Kerry "stay the course in Iraq" and accept the Patriot Act. You Kerry supporters may view our resistance with contempt, but once you jettison the grass roots anti-war movement, you forfeit a lot of votes.

I am quite aware that the Democratic majority voted for Kerry in the primaries. Evidently the majority of our party is centrist, bordering on conservative. That is a disappointment to the likes of me, but hey, I don't vote to win YOUR favor, only to elect someone who best represents my views.

I can already hear you Kerry apologists telling me to move to Canada. Well, maybe I will.

:nuke:

[Classical_Liberal]

94. They aren't centrists, but they don't know anything

but they did respond to dlc scare tactics, about Dean's electability. Kerry still is not Bush, however those of us who opposed the war, need to start putting pressure on the EU not to cooperate with President Kerry until he shows substance rather then just Bush foreign policy presented more tactfully.

[stepnw1f]

91. Take It Easy

It's just the way it is in Washington. I don't like it either, but that's what we have. We can change it, but one thing at a time or you have a revolution. Which do you want?

[Classical_Liberal]

93. Saying Bush would lose the war on terror.

doesn't make him look like a peacenik.. Saying it makes no difference who wins the election gives people no incentive to vote for Kerry, so I doubt he will have a chance to prove he is his own man. The centrists will leave such a wus in droves.

[uhhuh]

92. Wtf??

I am having such a hard time with this!!

I didn't become a Democrat because of a coin flip. I became a Democrat because I felt that what the Democratic Party represented was closer to what I believe is correct.
If The chimp was doing a good job in my view, I would vote Republican.

What I see is a lot of people saying that he has to lie about what he stands for to pander to the supposed "middle". Is there something about progressive and liberal positions that he has to be ashamed of?
If that's true, doesn't that indicate that, as the RW loves to say, liberalism is wrong?
Is the Great Orator and Statesman John Kerry incapable of making an inspiring argument in favor of social justice and peace?

I'm still waiting for the great DLC "plan" from 2002 that was supposed to pick up seats in Congress after months of Dems pandering to repubs.

So when do we get to see the Kerry "plan" to beat the most incompetent president in history? 2008?

He's not "taking the issue away from the chimp". He is capitulating in an area he feels he currently has a weak position.

His "war hero" position is being further eroded by taking his knowledge of the horrors of war and giving the chimp position legitimacy. Now the chickenhawks and those who served will be saying, "stay the course!", "stay the course!"

"We can't leave now! We made this mess! We have to stay and fix it!"
Yep. We made this mess. We don't have to stay and fix it. We will leave eventually and, just like in Vietnam, we will have probably made it even worse on all sides instead of better. it's just that more people will be dead then. How Fixed is Vietnam now?
The Iraqis have, of late, shown unusual solidarity with each other over the occupation issue. Sunnis and Shiites don't seem very eager to fight with each other. Iraqi conscripts in the occupation army seem to be heavily resistant to shooting at their own people. This is a great time to get out.
Instead, Kerry puts on his boots of empire, and stands behind the chimp and whispers, "Me Too!", and I'm supposed to say that's cool?

Kerry has good positions. He should use them. The chimp has shitty positions. Kerry shouldn't use them. THEY WILL BITE HIM IN THE ASS!!
Mark my words.

[tedzbear]

95. Exzzzzzzzzzzellent post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who's to say a third party can't grow (a la Perot) as a result of the apologist Kerry's political suicide? We may very well survive 4 more years of Bush, and come out of it with three parties instead of two. Voting with integrity may be the right thing to do in the long term. Don't listen to the Kerry apologists and scare mongers. Vote as you truly believe.

:kick:

[uhhuh]

96. I'm still voting Kerry

I just think He's read the defense all wrong. He better stand up soon, though.

[nolabels]

98. Don't hold your breath

He probably wont unless it starts to erode his base. Most swing votes are decided in the last few weeks anyway