Does Kerry "get it?"

[BurtWorm]

If Kerry had voted NO on the Iraq resolution he would have eliminated his one major vulnerability among his own party members. It would have made his softness on Bush's illegitimacy look like less of a problem. As it is, Kerry has telegraphed a position that the last presidential election was nothing more serious than unfortunate. He has said as much, with his comment about "getting over it." But the Iraq resolution vote made it clear that he was willing to invest in the Bush regime the legitimate authority to conduct the war as it saw fit, providing that blah, blah, blah.

I remember there was an election--I don't recall which one--not that long ago in which the grassroots question about each candidate was "Does he/she get it?" Remember that one? Did they "get it" about women's issues? In my opinion, Kerry doesn't get it about Election 2000. This is not enough to make me vote for a third party if Kerry somehow succeeds to gain the nomination without making some effort to appear to get it. In my opinion, though, he won't get the nomination until he finally does get it. Dean has momentum precisely because he does.

[wtmusic]

1. There have been a number of threads

on this topic and BW as usual you sum it up nicely...no, this is an issue that will plague Kerry, and should he get the nomination I have a funny feeling that the situation in Iraq will be so ugly by 11/04 it could cost him REPUBLICAN votes!

[Walt Starr]

3. This single issue is why I believe Kerry stands absolutely no chance

I honestly believe that if one of the bloody four should win the nomination, the election is a foregone conclusion.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Are You Guys Really That Out of Touch?

The vast majority of Americans supported disarming Saddam, but felt that Bush did a terrible job of it before and after. Kerry is exactly in tune with the majority of Americans - including Republicans (who want to like Bush, but he's a screw up). Kerry is not going after 150,000 internet activists. That may win the nomination (I doubt it), but it will never win the race. No matter how bad it gets, they'll never vote for someone they see as soft on Defense.

[Walt Starr]

10. I honestly believe Kerry will stand no chance if nominated

That's why I feel there is no problem with me going third party should that occur.

[sfecap]

15. 150,000 Internet activists?

How insulting to the MILLIONS of Americans who were opposed to a unilateral attack on Iraq.

Dr. Funk...I do respect your opinions, but surely you realize that many, many voters will carefully consider Se. Kerry's voting record. To many, his vote was simply wrong. To blithely write off those who deeply opposed the Iraq debacle is not very smart. If that is Se. Kerry's plan, he is making a very bad mistake.

The next Presidency is about much more than military conquests, and VietNam records.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. He Applauded The Anti-War People At His Speech

BTW, Kerry was opposed to a unilateralist attack on Iraq, too. Secondly, you are mistaking the people who opposed disarming Saddam Husseing with those who opposed the rush to war. I was part of those millions. I nearly got trampled by police horses in NYC. And yet, somehow I can figure out that you can support disarmament and oppose unilateralist invasion, pre-emption, and regime change.

[wtmusic]

25. Here we go again

There is a widespread misconception that Kerry 'opposed' unilateral action.

Kerry didn't support the Byrd amendment to war authorization which specified just that. So there's a gulf between what he said and what he did which will (and rightfully should) sink his chances for the nomination.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

28. If he was opposed to unilateral action

then why didn't he vote in a way to prevent it? That's what I just don't get.

[Walt Starr]

29. Because he would not be hedging his bets that way

This happens so often in politics. They say one thing, vote another way and can then point to what they said or what they did as the audience makeup dictates.

It's hedging bets. Unfortunately for Kerry, some of us noticed him doing it.

[sfecap]

35. Look, here's my problem...

With all due respect.

I believe that Sen. Kerry had an opportunity to cast his vote against an invasion of Iraq, and he did not do so because of political reasons. Fine. That was his choice. He knew that his vote would be scrutinized when he ran for the nomination. He chose to go with the right wing and the pro war faction who seemed to be running the media show at the time. I don't believe that he truly thought that bush would do the right thing. He had to have known that bush was a lying asshole, and he would attack Iraq in any event. Kerry merely did the politically expedient thing. I may be totally wrong, but that's how this voter sees it.

The Patriot Act is another matter entirely. For a man who has a stellar record on Civil Rights, to vote in favor of the most egregious assault on our rights as citizens in the history of our country is simply unforgivable to me. There is NO excuse that can satisfy me on this. Once again, I believe that he simply went with the most politically appealing option, which I find reprehensible. The Patriot Act was not the subject of much debate, and we are now reaping what the politicians have sown. Byrd should have been listened to.

John Kerry has done many, many good things in his career. I am sure he is a fine man. However, I cannot resolve these issues enough to support him.

I completely respect that you do support him, but he just isn't the guy for me.

[calimary]

85. Sfecap, you make some REALLY valid points. And in a noncombative way.

I couldn't agree more.

What bothers me about Kerry is this set of votes, PLUS, what it represents. What it signals to me is that he gave in when the herd mentality was leaping before looking. He joined the lemmings. There was no questioning from him. There was no demand from him for better answers from the bushies. He just swallowed what they were jamming down everyone's throats without batting an eyelash. I wonder if perhaps he was among the many who just rubberstamped the Patriot Act without even reading it. Remember how quickly it passed? NOBODY questioned this! They blindly allowed themselves to be led along, and HE WAS AMONG THEM!!!!

My point is - back during that time, or shortly thereafter, when the run-up for the war was going on, weren't MOST OF US HERE, and other bush opposers, aware of the pitfalls of doing what we wound up doing in Iraq? And WE are not part of the inner circles. We are not privvy to the National Security Council info or CIA memos or any of that. All we've done is read and research here on the internet. And if WE PEONS AND scorned, demonized "fringe people" and mocked and marginalized "focus group members" were able to "get it," WHY THE HELL COULDN'T JOHN KERRY?!?!?!? And, hell, he had Robert Byrd shouting right into his ear, for heaven's sakes!!!!!

WHERE THE FUCK WAS HE BUT EITHER ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OR IN TOTAL DENIAL OR SCARED TO GO AGAINST THE "ALMIGHTY" BUSH? If he was scared, then what good does it do to trumpet his bravery during war? In THIS war, he showed no bravery whatsovever.

That's why I, too, have a problem with him. Plus the "get over it" dismissal of those of us who WILL NOT, sorry John, WILL NOT get over Selection 2000. Why hasn't he told the Jews to "get over" the Holocaust, then, too?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Not so fast there, Sparky.

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

.....................Worth It.......NotWorth It..........Don'tKnow

8/26-28/03...........46..............46....................8
8/11-12/03...........46..............45....................9


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm




On edit: Where's this "vast majority" you spoke of?

[DrFunkenstein]

32. You're Kidding Yourself

Americans will put the blame precisely where it belongs - on Bush's a)Rush to war, and b)Failure to prepare for the peace. They're not going to suddenly think Saddam was a nice guy who should have been left to his own devices.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. We agree!

a) Rush to War. And those who supported and facilitated it.

b) Failure to prepare for the peace. And those who supported and facilitated it's ugly consequences by voting for a).


Need a Dean or Kucinich button?

[wtmusic]

20. Please 'splain me

how you can make the logical leap of assuming that because the vast majority of Americans supported 'disarming' Saddam in Oct. 2002 that they still do, or will in Nov. 2004?

Look at Dean's numbers before you ridiculously conclude that Dean's supporters number '150,000 internet activists'.

Anyone who believes Dean is soft on defense doesn't know any better, and Dean is doing a terrific job of combating that misrepresentation.

[sangh0]

70. Here's how

how you can make the logical leap of assuming that because the vast majority of Americans supported 'disarming' Saddam in Oct. 2002 that they still do, or will in Nov. 2004?

Recent polls show that a large majority (>60%) STILL think that the invasion was justified.

Now, can you explain how you made the "logical leap" that the majority of Americans DON'T support the invasion?

[wtmusic]

77. the word was 'vast'

and its 'vastness' is shrinking by the day. No leap necessary.

[stickdog]

79. That's just the "rally 'round the dead troops" effect.

It depends how the question is asked and you know it.

The supposed support for this insane war in paper thin.

Politicians who use polls to justify the unjustifiable get what they deserve.

[stickdog]

78. Come on, now. It was more than 55% - 45% against going in there

without the UN until the bullets started flying.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

5. Oh paleez

No one's ravaging him. He's honorable, he's qualified, he's just not a leader in my book.

If you want to draw ridiculous associations that's your choice.

[Eloriel]

49. Um, I dissent on the honorable part

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is a politically expedient vote for a needless, immoral, unjustified and unjustifiable war. You know, the kind of war he protested against once upon a time.

But there are some other things in his background that tarnishes any "honorable" aura too.

Eloriel

[wtmusic]

56. With you there

I don't know about the other background things...

But I do respect the fact that he stood up to the plate when his country called on him, unlike:

AWOL
Cheney
Adelman
Bolton
Wolfowitz

etc etc etc.

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

[BurtWorm]

6. I am not ravaging Kerry.

I'm asking a question that's crucial to me and I think millions of other Democrats who were disenfranchised in the last election. I just read Kerry's speech. No sign that he gets it. He needs to if he wants to energize me and others like me to vote for him.

[CWebster]

7. Let him remain Senator

kerry. He is a liability.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Gore Told People To "Get Over It"

When he dropped out of the race. He said he wanted the race to be about the future, not the past - which his nomination obviously represented.

Kerry and Gore are friends. Kerry vigorously supported Gore in 2000, well after Lieberman got the bid over him (a big mistake in hindsight - it made him look even more bland).

If anyone needs to "get it," it would seem to be the people fixated on the past instead of asking what a candidate will ACTUALLY DO once they are President. Being a critic is not the same as being a leader.

[ibegurpard]

8. The past is usually a decent indicator of what a candidate will do.

Kerry expects me to believe he'll stand up against corruption in government? He hasn't shown me by his actions and statements on the issues that continue to dog him.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Why Do I Get The Feeling You Haven't Been Paying Attention?

We need to rebuild trust between investors and corporations. We need to encourage Americans to have confidence in the markets.

Unfortunately, while this President talks tough on corporate accountability - his administration has worked tirelessly to undermine reform and sabotage any meaningful oversight of the accounting industry. They even tried to cut next year’s budget for the SEC by $200 million - further weakening enforcement of corporate crimes.

Frankly, we need a President whose approach to abuse is a little more like Teddy Roosevelt and a little less like Herbert Hoover when it comes to keeping an eye on corporate America. We need an SEC chairman who will put investors ahead of industry, an Accounting Oversight Board chairman who will make sure they correct the books, instead of cooking them, And we need to give the SEC the tools it needs to enforce the laws.

And just as we need to renew American confidence in the markets, we have to restore long-term confidence in our government with budget and tax reform. That means simplifying the tax code and making sure it puts the interests of all Americans ahead of the special interests. It means closing tax loopholes and cutting corporate welfare. And it means a long-term effort to keep our budget balanced - cutting wasteful spending so we can invest in economic programs that work.

And if we’re serious about fairness - and about holding the fabric of America together - we must eliminate unfair tax shelters and cut corporate welfare. This will not only save taxpayers money - it will put government back on the side of the people and allow us to focus on actually creating jobs.

Just think - offshore tax havens and shelters enable corporations and executives to evade an estimated $70 billion in taxes each year. How can anyone in this country suggest we have a fair system when companies can take $70 billion off the table? That undermines the very essence of our government.

It’s a system only companies like Enron could love. And did they ever. Enron held over 800 subsidiaries in countries with no taxes on income, profits, or capital gains -- 692 in the Cayman Islands alone. I believe in opening new markets and I want American companies to win. But I know we can distinguish between legitimate businesses and sham transactions.

Assets in offshore entities have climbed from an estimated $200 billion in 1983, to an estimated $5 trillion today - and too many are brass plate addresses with a fax machine in an offshore tax haven.

What does that say to the vast majority of Americans who actually pay taxes? And the silence from this Administration speaks volumes! They’ve dragged their feet and fought every attempt to crack down on corporate loopholes. It’s time we stood up and insisted on real reform and real tax fairness.

We must also take a hard look at federal spending. We simply can’t afford to keep wasting money on the wrong things.

It won’t be easy. The special interests will stop at nothing to keep their special deals. That’s why I’ve joined John McCain in calling for a “Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission” modeled after the military base-closing commission. A bipartisan group would recommend corporate subsidies to be eliminated and Congress would have to vote up or down on the entire package.

It’s the only way to stop the games that go on in Washington. When I first came to the Senate, each year millions upon millions of dollars were lavished on a wool and mohair subsidy cooked up during WWI to make sure we’d have plenty of wool and mohair for our soldiers’ uniforms.

But even after we stopped making our uniforms out of wool and mohair, the subsidy continued. I came to the Senate floor again and again - finally we killed it. Or we thought we did. Last year it came back. This kind of wasteful, no-growth, special interest giveaway is alive and well -- again. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We were presented a defense bill that gave away $250,000 to an Illinois firm to research caffeinated chewing gum; $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska; $250,000 for a lettuce geneticist in Salinas, California and $64,000 for urban pest research in Georgia. This is our defense budget?

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1203.html

[ibegurpard]

27. I wasn't talking about corporate corruption.

Can't do anything about that until they start holding THEMSELVES accountable to people. I'll make no bones about it...I'm pissed off as hell at Kerry about the Iraq resolution... and no, it's NOT because I'm staunchly anti-war. It's because I'm told over and over and over again by Kerry supporters that Kerry's got the goods on the BFEE. Well, if that's so then why would he vote to give EVEN THE APPEARANCE of legitimacy to Bush's wag-the-dog effort? He had nothing to lose by opposing it, unless of course he thought that it might hurt his presidential ambitions. Yeah, maybe it's just "one" issue but, in my opinion, it says a lot more about him then some campaign speech or blog entry.

[DrFunkenstein]

36. He Voted That Way Because He Believed

That Saddam needed to fully account for his disarmament without restrictions. Why did you support the invasion of Afghanistan like Dean? Because the Taliban refused to account for the presence of Al-Qaeda. And I think that was right. It should have been conducted better, but it was right.

[wtmusic]

42. Unfortunately there's a big difference

The rest of the world agreed with us on Afghanistan, and the rest of the world disagreed with us on Iraq. Are we rulers of the world? If so let's remove the pretense and rumble! Big Brother time! Yeah!

No, we have pledged to uphold international law via the UN, and by invading Iraq we broke that pledge.

Night and day.

[WilliamPitt]

11. You'd think that if Gore "gets it"

he'd actually be in the race.

Right?

[Eloriel]

50. I can't imagine why you'd think that, draw that conclusion

In fact, the comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.

:shrug:

Eloriel

[Monte Carlo]

12. I'm biased, but I don't think anything in Washington is straightforward.

I think in the upcoming election, being labeled as 'antiwar' will be like a scarlet letter. The Bush Administration and specifically Karl Rove will make national defense and national fear and paranoia the number one issue. It trumped the ruinous economy in the 2002 election, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't work their magic again. Being smeared as not willing or able to confront the "other" out there will be a powerful smear, indeed.

I think many here took Kerry's "get over it" remark in too similar a way to the GOP thugs. The way Kerry said it, I think, is that the Florida election fiasco is now in the past and unchangeable. I don't even think Lieberman thinks the Bush v. Gore decision was just in any way, but the best way to attack that is not to weep over spilled milk, but to focus in whole on the 2004 election, which is an absolute must-win for the Democrats.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Dylan Said It Best

But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

[polpilot]

14. Kerry voted for what he wanted. He got it. Sure he 'gets it.'

Dean '04...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Starpass]

16. Ya know what, folks

to the 2/3 of Dem voters who cannot even name one of our candidates this all means crap. It's a big thing with Dean supporters but not the big picture of the party NOR the American people. It's a turn off for you; but war support is a big turn on for the overwhelming majority of Americans. You can't win in a vacuum. I'll start being concerned about their opinion of whether you can ever elect anyone to any position in this nation who supported the war when six people on a random street corner can even name one of our candidates.........jesus we have a lot of work ahead of us....but let's spend it picking fleas off of each other (show me those business dealings in Vermont, Howard....come on--inquiring minds want to know---'cause I just can't support people who, gasp, cut dirty deals with corporate America against their own party, gasp).

[western mass]

26. big turn on

So many people support the war because they've been lied to.

Democrats have two options.

(1) Accept the republican version of reality, let them set the agenda, continue to treat their crime wave as mere incompetance (but still legitimate, honest & moral).

(2) Call them on it and present a different version of reality.

Kerry is still clinging to (1). That's why he doesn't get it. Still hoping he does get a clue, because he's a good democrat.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. Kerry has already rejected the GOP spin job in Iraq.

He has already called Bush on his SNAFU, and btw, Kerry is a GREAT democrat!

[stickdog]

80. Yeah, it's a big turn on to the 40% who think Saddam was giving

al-Qaeda WMDs.

I wonder why they think that.

Could it be a complicit corporate media PLUS a complicit Democratic Party?

A real leader is not afraid to lead people to the truth.

[kang]

21. I don't see any reason to be throwing "Coulter"'

bombs at fellow liberals. Being critical of Kerry's position on Iraq is one thing, writing a book accusing liberals of "Treason" (and being a overall fanatic) is in an entirely different league.

But I'm curious that Dean people seem incredibly confident that Kerry will be hurt for supporting the war, but seem untroubled by the need for Dean to explain exactly why he thought bringing down a tyrannical dictator was not a good thing to do. Granted, Dean's position was that we couldn't afford it and that other more imminent threats demanded our attention, but it's still a problem when you get Pres. Bush campaigning on, "I stand for freedom and we liberated Iraq."

Americans are dying over there and people do get touchy when somebody says that it's all a mistake. It could go either way.

[BurtWorm]

23. A serious question is not a bomb.

I want Kerry to get it. I think he has a better chance of winning the Dems and the country if he gets it. I just see evidence to the contrary.

As for Dean's position, it's in line with most of the world's: the Iraq war was hyped. We were all lied to. It was unnecessary. Only the Coulter right fails to get that.

[kang]

30. That's not quite true

While it's clear that the Bush Administration hyped intelligence and misled the public, whether it was "unnecessary" is not as clear-cut as you would seem to argue. I think there are a large number of Iraqis (Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite) who would tell you that bringing down Hussein's regime was absolutely necessary. After all, we are talking about a dictator who committed genocide (and faced no real consequences from the international world).

So it's not just conservatives that think the war accomplished some good things. To ignore this point is to appear unconcerned with freedom and human rights (which in my opinion trumps any sovereignty argument in this case). That is what I think Dean must address in his position if he gets to the general election. It doesn't help that there's that "I suppose it's a good thing" quote floating around.

[wtmusic]

31. So an American concept of freedom and human rights

trumps any sovereignty argument in this case? Hmm...

What about the world's conception of 'due process'? You would have been very popular among proponents of lynch mobs.

[BurtWorm]

34. The question is, was it necessary for the US to ditch the UN

and run around the democracy to get this war on? If so, why all the lies? Were those white lies?

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Which Part Does Kerry Disagree With?

"As for Dean's position, it's in line with most of the world's: the Iraq war was hyped. We were all lied to. It was unnecessary."

That is Kerry's position. Because he said Saddam brought it on himself by screwing around doesn't mean it was a necessary war. Kerry very much supported the UN process. In fact, Bush was talking about going to war without consulting the UN or even Congress before the IWR.

[BurtWorm]

43. By voting for the resolution

Kerry legitimized Bush. What do you say to that?

[Cha]

47. You obviously don't know what Dean's Position on that is or

you wouldn't be saying that!

We could have gone through the UN and gotten rid of sadam...we didn't need to bomb the shit out of Iraq!

And it's only getting worse for the survivors....

"SOLDIERS and civilians in Iraq face a health timebomb after dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad."

"Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas."

"Experts estimate that Britain and the US used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of DU during attacks on Iraqi forces"

I got this from another thread that got it from a "Drudge Report" so there is no link!

[newyawker99]

81. Hi kang!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[library_max]

33. "My Candidate Sucks So Bad That I Have To Attack Yours"

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

[wtmusic]

37. When is discussion considered bashing?

Shall we all just loll about in mutual adoration, lie naked in a big pile, whatever? This is a d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n group, so hence, some discussion will occur.

Please feel free to start 'Buck Fush' threads and see how many replies you will receive.

[BurtWorm]

41. Thank you, wtmusic!

You're right on.

[library_max]

57. Discussion?

Oh, so the eternal repetition of "Kerry voted for the war," "Dean's supporters are cultists," etc. etc. is discussion. Posters saying that if Dean or Kerry or whoever is the nominee, they'll vote Green or stay home - harmless discussion, right?

Too many of us are talking ourselves into a corner from which we may not be able to stomach the eventual nominee (whoever it turns out to be), much less actively campaign for him or her. It was the same problem with Nader and the Greens in 2000, where they actually convinced themselves that there WAS no difference between Gore and Bush (!).

Maybe you haven't followed enough strings to have read these arguments a million times. I have. It may appear reasonable and respectful at the start, but it always ends in bloodletting and vows to vote for Satan rather than (Dean, Kerry, or whoever).

[BurtWorm]

58. This question is intended to provoke discussion

on a subject I haven't seen discussed even at DU. Can a Democrat who ignores Election 2000 win the nomination? Does he or she deserve to? Does Kerry get Election 2000?

Feel free to adress the question. Or to continue trying to stifle debate.

[Walt Starr]

61. Hasn't he already taken a stance on Election 2000?

I thought he said it was time to move on.

[library_max]

62. I reread your original post

and I stand by my reaction that this is just another "Kerry is the devil because he voted for the war" string. Did Kerry actually say "get over it" about the 2000 election? Where and when? If that's the issue you want to raise, why lead off with the Iraq resolution? As they say in the courtroom, "Asked and answered."

[BurtWorm]

64. He did actually say "Get over it"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/129019_joel02.html


Kerry was tiptoeing on Sunday, but did go into how liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

Exhibit A, he said, was the enormous amount of effort and money Democrats had to spend in the Northwest in 2000 "to pull people back from the (Ralph) Nader precipice." Invested elsewhere, it might have won the day for Al Gore.

He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the "stolen" election. "Stop crying in your teacups," he told one audience. "It isn't going to change. Get over it."


Way to motivate the base, John.

As for the Iraq resolution vote, I stand by my criticism, that anyone who votes in favor of authorizing Bush to do what he wills anywhere, even if conditions are allegedly attached to that authority, is voting to legitimize an illegitimate regime. I have a problem with that. I'd like Kerry people to explain that.

[library_max]

66. Well and Good

You've finally included a post that addresses the issue you claim the thread is about. One useful thing to remember is that we have to attract middle and undecided voters, as well as energizing the base. Did you catch the point in the article you cited about turning fractured Democrats into a disciplined, coherent alternative to President Bush?

But at least it's a new attack. The old one is tired. It's not even worth explaining yet again that the Iraq resolution did not "authorize Bush to do what he wills anywhere." Let that old cat die, will you?

[wtmusic]

69. Well hot damn, library_max is discussing

in this tired old bash thread. Funny how that happens.

Two things:

1) There will be plenty of time to rally around a Dem candidate after the convention. In the meantime, let's pick the best one, K?

2) If these 'bash' threads bother you so much why bother post? Go to the lounge and discuss old rock groups.

[library_max]

73. Gee, you get excited easily

1) Pick the best one, fine. Accuse the one you don't think is best of spinelessness, insanity, treachery, corruption, Bushism, etc., not so fine. You think we can all do a 180 after the convention and rally around the candidate we railed against for six months? Think that won't do any harm to our enthusiasm or our unity? Think a bunch of us won't end up voting Green rather than compromise with our hurt feelings? Read a little history of recent elections.

2) If you're going to be a doctor, you have to hang around with sick people. Healthy people don't need a doctor. Get it?

[wtmusic]

76. Calm down yourself

Apparently your point is that Democrats will fall to pieces if their fave isn't nominated. And your evidence? You mean you've been around for 52 whole posts and you don't know about asking people to 'read a little history', 'look it up', etc.?

Most people in DU frankly don't care about your position enough to bother, and if you don't care enough to provide facts or a link your argument just doesn't carry much weight.

That said, if you would vote Green because your feelings were hurt by a post in Democratic Underground--perhaps you do need a doctor.

[library_max]

82. A PhD in missing the point

goes to wtmusic. I'm not the one saying that I wouldn't vote for (x) candidate, ever, no matter what. I'm not the one attacking candidates and calling them warmongers, etc. So we're not talking about my hurt feelings, we're talking about the feelings of the posters who are convincing themselves that they can't vote for Kerry (or Dean or you-name-it) in the general election. This is what is so self-defeating.

And I didn't mean to actually ask you to read anything, sorry. What I was trying to say briefly was that we have lost a lot of presidential elections, Clinton excepted, by demanding ideological purity of the nominee and by supporters of the different nominees going for blood before and in the primaries. Whoever ends up with the nomination comes out too damaged by the process to be electable.

[BurtWorm]

39. How am I attacking Kerry?

I'm asking a legitimate question about him. I have a legitimate concern about him. Primary season is barely out of the womb. We have time to get clear about the candidates.

[Cha]

40. I'm sorry but your spamming of this post is getting very old!

And it's not relevant!

[sfecap]

44. Quit spamming.

How many threads are you going to post this in?

Perhaps groupthink is more appealing to you?

[library_max]

59. Needs to be said over and over

until it sinks in. We are only hurting ourselves by pulling out the long-knives against every Democrat who isn't our favorite candidate. One of them (and only one) will be the eventual nominee. I have no quarrel with positive messages supporting a preferred candidate, but we've got to stop ripping each other to pieces. The coming election is too important to piss away on infighting.

[BurtWorm]

60. A question about a key issue is not a long knife.

This isn't the GOP. We're entitled to vet our candidates rather than swallow what's shoved down our throats.

[library_max]

63. Who's shoving anything down your throat?

Support whoever you please. Vote for whoever you please in the primaries. But no good purpose is served by this endless rehash of Kerry's vote on the Iraq resolution. It's been attacked, it's been defended, it's been explained, over and over ad infinitum.

[BurtWorm]

65. This aspect has not been explained.

Does Kerry get Election 2000? The Iraq vote suggests he misses it by a mile. If nominated, is he going to put that knife in his sheath and trust that his war record is sufficient to whip Bush's ass. Why sheathe that particular knife when it energizes so many Democrats?

PS: Why sheathe it when principle demands you use it? What was the meaning of Election 2000 to you? What is it to Kerry? Just something sore losermen and loserwomen cry in their teacups about?

[library_max]

67. Because it makes us look like losers and crybabies to middle voters

The hard part of the upcoming election is going to be to keep the base energized without alienating middle voters. That means the base is largely going to have to energize itself, with very little "red meat" from its nominee. When your party is out of power, you can't strut around and flaunt your ideological purity.

Remember how Bush campaigned in 2000? Compassionate conservatism, no child left behind, all that rot? It made a total chimp look presidential to darn near half the American voters. You have to sell what people are willing to buy. Only us die-hards are still mad about the 2000 election, and where is that going to get us? We need to concentrate on winning the 2004 election.

[BurtWorm]

68. Bush lost the last election, remember?

Because he couldn't expand beyond his base. He and his brother could only disenfranchise the Democrats. That was the best they could hope for. I need to hear from the nominee of my party that he knows where his bread is buttered.

The whole problem of the DLC strategy is that they want to expand the base without taking care to hold onto what the party already has. The Democratic nominee will not win if he doesn't fire up the base for him. We won't do it automatically for anybody.

[library_max]

71. "We won't do it automatically for anybody"?

That's a great formula for failure. That'll make a great quote when somebody writes the history of why the Democratic Party died in the early 21st Century.

[BurtWorm]

72. You want we should be robots?

[library_max]

74. No, I want to win the freakin' election. What do you want?

[BurtWorm]

75. I want a Democrat to win the election.

[library_max]

83. Then you need to position yourself to support the nominee

whoever it turns out to be, rather than saying "Kerry, no way, never, never, never." And you need to get used to the idea that the "base" is going to have to get by on a very limited supply of red meat from whoever the nominee turns out to be (even if it's Dean) so that said nominee can appeal to the mushy middle. The Republicans figured this out after Goldwater and they've had it working for them ever since. Surely we're not dumber than Republicans? And if you say we're too smart to vote in lockstep, then you're saying we're too smart to win elections.

[BurtWorm]

84. You need to learn how to read.

Show me where I said "Kerry, no way, never, never, never."

[ibegurpard]

45. Look, I'd really like to believe that Kerry would be a great President

because the chances are pretty high that he'll be our nominee. I don't believe it, though. I think that he'll just be another business-as-usual guy who will do nothing to give the Democratic Party the shot in the arm it desperately needs to get people enthused and ACTIVE in politics. I really, really hope I'm wrong. If I have to choose between Kerry and Bush then obviously I'm voting for Kerry. He doesn't excite me though (actually he's pissed me off) and I'm really afraid that there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

[Eloriel]

52. I really, really think you ARE wrong

Barring unforeseen circumstances (which aren't out of the question, sadly), Dean has the best shot at the nomination of anyone.

You need to spend more time at the Official Blog. ;-)

Eloriel

[ibegurpard]

55. And I really, really hope (and think) that you're right.

:toast:

[realFedUp]

51. I'm ready to move on from how they voted.

Kerry gave a good speech, he clearly wants troops other
than Americans there and I think he's well qualified to run
the country.
Let's move on from their original vote. We're in there,
we don't like it, but let's focus on getting out.

I'll hold my vote until next November.

[Walt Starr]

53. The original vote is why we're in there.

Like the 2000 election, I'm not getting over it.

[wtmusic]

54. Agree - 'get over it' is a major cop out

on an issue like Iraq. People act as if the Iraq issue is in the same universe as Clinton's blowjob.

When I pinned a Republican down on the Iraq fiasco his response was 'well, I think the point is, where do we go from here?", to which I replied, "Certainly not the same direction that got us here!"