A Brief Thought on Kerry Bashing....

[rasputin1952]

Maybe it is just me, but I've seen an incredible amount of "Kerry Bashing" going on lately. I wonder why this is?

To be sure, we're all kind of 'down' about the election...but really folks, our enemy is bush.

While i would not necessarily say criticism of Kerry is wrong...while time is wasted on that subject, bush is destroying the nation we know.
Does it make sense to discuss something of no importance, vs the destruction of the Constitution/Liberty/and eternal war?

Priorities folks...Bashing Kerry will do nothing but bring animosity to DU....Fighting the bush agenda, will preserve a progressive United States. The choice is obvious to me...:)

[curse10]

1. I agree ras

bashing Kerry does nothing but make me mad at fellow dems. I want to be mad at repugs, not people who should share similar beliefs that I do.

[Parche]

20. kerry

Agree

its the system we have to change and be mad about

how about we all work together to rid the US of electronic voting
machines

Kerry ran a great campaign, it was the cheats and the thieves in
Florida and Ohio that made us lose

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Well said

Rasputin...looking to the future. Heh. ;)

[Jade Fox]

3. If we were as united and determined to win as the Right....

we might actually, you know, WIN.

[CTLawGuy]

131. if you want a united party

you have to do better than roll over on half the hated President's agenda. ABB can only get you so far.

[Merlot]

4. Yes! Fight the bush agenda

instead of each other.

[StClone]

5. The Cons have control over everything so

They just can't sit there and praise themselves on the obvious disaster that is BushCo. They have to keep bashing the ghosts and little nothings that their deluded paranoid sends them to.

Besides inciting the hate that Rove has created takes time to undo and is still with us.

Lastly, Kerry is in the ME right now and is looking quite Presidential.

[InvisibleBallots]

6. Kerry is as much of the enemy as Bush is

Since Kerry has purposefully ignored the fraudulent voting machines, promoted and justified the war, and continues to support the PATRIOT Act, I don't see how Kerry is any less of an enemy than Bush?

[KC21304]

8. I do not see how anyone who has heard what Kerry

has been saying about everyone of the issues you have mentioned can say what you have said is accurate. Have a nice day.

[InvisibleBallots]

22. forget what he says, look at his actions

I don't understand how anyone who paid attention to Kerry's career can think of him as anything else.

[sandnsea]

26. Kerry's career

Special thanks to JohnKleeb for compiling this list. What have YOU done for the people in this country? Hmm?

Abortion Issues


2003-2004 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Civil Rights
(Back to top)

2003 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 81 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time..

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National School Boards Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

Labor
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 102 percent of the time. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus.

2003 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 64 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Workplace Fairness considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Postal Workers Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association of Social Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Electrical Contractors Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 38 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Food & Commercial Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Liberal
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in the first quarter of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the State PIRGs Working Together considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 96 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

[InvisibleBallots]

30. wow, the Senator from MASS - one of the bluest states

He sure as hell votes solid Democratic on the social issues doesn't he. As for "Free trade", labor, corporations, the war - his record sure is spotty isn't it? He's not even in a swing state. He's one of the richest people in the US, from a prominent aristocratic family, and this is the best he can do? Are there any Sentors from solid blue states that have a record much different than this?

When the chips are down, when the really big issues come up - where is Kerry? Did Kerry mention Diebold before the election? Did Kerry ask any question about 911? Has Kerry said anything about Bush's new "Salvador" option - he's supposed to be the "expert" on that time period right?

Where was Kerry when we needed him to speak out strongly against the war? Where is Kerry now? What is he doing besides starting his 2008 campaign?

As for what I've done - I'm not running for President, nor am I supposed to be a Senator nor a Democratic "leader" - if you're holding me to the standards you hold Kerry, we have a lot of problems.

[sandnsea]

32. I live in a blue state

And no, my Democratic Senator doesn't have near the record of John Kerry. Is John Kerry a leftist? No, neither is 95% of the country. So if that's what you're basing your whine on, you may as well face the fact that you'll be dealing with that whine for the rest of your life. America is not anti-capitalism and never will be. Thems the breaks. But if you're looking for someone to improve the trade agreements we've got and protect labor and the environment while conducting business, Kerry has been fighting for that for years. Unfortunately, nobody stands up for the real improvements that can be made because they're too busy throwing temper tantrums and promoting socialism. Hold your breath until you turn blue, I don't give a shit. I'll get out there, WITH John Kerry, and fight to fix things in spite of your temper tantrums.

[InvisibleBallots]

34. Kerry's record

- announced that his first campaign promises to cancel weapons systems and reduce defense spending were ill-advised; -voted for the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985 resulting in dramatic cuts in domestic social programs;
- voted against Gulf War I only to soon reverse himself saying he was ill advised;
- voted for the 1996 Telecommunications Act facilitating media monopolies;
- supported Clinton’s “welfare reform;” -supported Clinton’s draconian “Counter-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,” a precursor to Bush II’s Patriot Act which Kerry also supported;
- supported the genocidal sanctions against and continued bombings of Iraq under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II;
- voted for the Homeland Security Act;
- voted for the “No Child Left Behind”Act;
- questioned the correctness of affirmative action;
- boldly declared that “the cause of Israel is the cause of America”;
- supports NAFTA, the WTO, GATT;
- continues to support massive increases in “defense” spending;
- supported Bush II’s tax cuts for the wealthy.

http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/kerrys.html

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

49. That's just sad

You obviously don't know there's more to trade issues than NAFTA, GATT and Fast Track. You obviously haven't considered that you can no more stop people selling products across borders than you can drugs. Trade isn't going to stop. And all the laws in the world can be written, if you've got a President that doesn't enforce them, they do no good. Which is exactly what Bush has done the last 4 years. That has much more to do with trade problems than the laws themselves.

"Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations."
http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

Voted for the Corzine Amendment to H.R. 3009, May 23, 2002: “To help ensure that trade agreements protect national security, social security, and other significant public services.”

Senator Kerry views the U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement as a model on which to base other free trade agreements, since it places environmental and labor provisions on the same plane as commercial provisions. The Bush administration has stepped back from the Jordan standards with the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). As president, John Kerry would renegotiate CAFTA with stronger labor and environmental provisions before sending it to Congress.
http://www.iadialog.org/summaries/sept04/trade_policy.asp

"Allison Dobson, Kerry's environmental spokesperson, told the Nation that Kerry would nevertheless ask other nations to amend Kyoto so it demands more from China and other developing nations whose emissions are rising -- China is poised to overtake the United States as the world's largest greenhouse polluter by 2020" He even promises to "promote environmental justice" by reinstating the keystone environmental principle of "polluter pays." Thus he would restore the tax on chemical and other corporations that finances the federal Superfund program charged with cleaning up toxic waste sites across the nation.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-13.htm

[InvisibleBallots]

50. Haha, Kerry wanted to add them in *2002* - ten years after he

fought to keep them OUT of the original NAFTA.

Keep trying, sandnsea - you might actually fool those who weren't there.

[sandnsea]

You're making things up

Go ahead, show me where he fought against environmental regulations. Show me where he fought against labor and human rights regulations. Consistently.

[InvisibleBallots]

57. Don't put words in my mouth

I'm making a very specific point - Kerry was one of the Democrats, in fact, one of the most prominent Democrats - to work AGAINST labor and environmental protections *specifically* in NAFTA. Kerry suggested we add them later, or in "side agreements". You are pointing out that Kerry took the lead - TEN YEARS LATER - while running for President. No argument there.

Kerry is a liberal, he has a solid record on the environment here at home - and he never blinked an eye when selling out American workers to China and the global corporations.

I also never said he fought against human rights regulations - again, you are putting words in my mouth. He's been mostly 100% good on LGBT rights issues - again - he never had problems screwing the American worker, gay straight or other.

[sandnsea]

59. You proved nothing

You can blabber all you want, doesn't prove a thing.

[InvisibleBallots]

65. sure, and Kerry still isnt' saying shit

about Diebold, or the stolen 2000 election, or much of anything else. So, blabber all you want about Loser Kerry, doesn't change a thing.

[sandnsea]

71. Change the subject, lol n/t

[InvisibleBallots]

77. tell us again how Kerry isn't rich or from a prominent family

Tell us again how Kerry "fought" to put environmental and labor standards in the free trade agreement 10 years after he fought to keep them out.

After Kerry's utter failure, I need some comic relief!

[whometense]

100. This is just ridiculous.

The guy used to working loading trucks in Somerville in the summers. Get a clue.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

123. Hey, I went to baording school too, and my parents weren't rich!

You are really ill informed.

[InvisibleBallots]

maybe that explains it?

Perhaps we're just having a cultural misunderstanding here? :shrug:

Whatever. Kerry lost. Too bad for all of us, huh?

[Straight Shooter]

33. "... from a prominent aristocratic family"?

You have your facts wrong. Don't let the middle name "Forbes" fool you into thinking he grew up well-heeled and has lived in luxury all his life.

Research the man, his background and his history, then come back to DU and vent your spleen.

[InvisibleBallots]

37. Which facts are wrong, Straight Shooter? Rosemary Forbes is not

beneficiary of the Forbes family fortune? I suppose Rosemary Forbes, Kerry's mother, is really some nice blue haired working class lady?

[Straight Shooter]

39. Poor baby.

You're just going to whine on and on about Kerry, no matter what anyone says.

Have a nice life.

[InvisibleBallots]

40. I proved you wrong, so you resort to "poor baby"

The fact that Kerry is blue-blooded aristocrap royalty is hardly a secret, it's been known forever, it's been published in all the papers.

Who do you think you are fooling?

[InvisibleBallots]

38. MSNBC - "John Kerry’s family traced back to royalty" Who are you fooling?

Who do you think you're fooling, Straight Shooter? Kerry is related to the Bush clan for christsakes. We give Bush shit for this, don't we?

Kingly connections run thick
through maternal blood line, sparking
political prediction from Burke’s Peerage
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's mother Rosemary Forbes Kerry, seen in this family photo from 1940, was a member of the affluent Forbes shipping family and a descendant of John Winthrop, who helped found Boston in 1630. She is the candidate's main link to royal personages of the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5723115/

So say British researchers who predict Democratic challenger John Kerry will oust President Bush on Nov. 2 simply because he boasts more royal connections than his Republican rival.

After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

[sandnsea]

51. I'm traced back to royalty

What's that got to do with anything? I have ancestors who were in the House of Burgesses. So friggin' what. Has no meaning to my life today. John Kerry isn't the one that's out of touch with the lives of real people.

[InvisibleBallots]

53. Kerry is from a rich, prominent family

You can try to pretend that he wasn't all you want, you are wrong. And you know it too.

[sandnsea]

55. They really weren't

His aunt paid for his schooling. His mother was bombed out of her home in France during WWII. They really weren't aristocrats. You do know his grandfather on his father's side committed suicide because he was broke, right? You do know most families expect the husband to be the supporter, regardless of the wife's wealth, right? Sometimes the wife gets less of her family's income if they don't like who she married. You knew all that, right?

[InvisibleBallots]

60. lol! yes, they were

Kerry is a scion of the Forbes family - one of the richest clans in America - he grew up in a life of privilege, went to private Swiss boarding schools, and then onto Yale, where he joined the ultimate rich, wealthy, connected fratenity, Skull & Bones - right along with his frat brother and fellow schoolmate, George W. Bush.

But please, keep up the comedy - I'm waiting to hear about how Kerry was born in a log cabin next! :eyes:

[JI7]

61. it's a fact his grandfather commited suicide because he was broke

it's a fact his relatives on his father's side were killed in the holocaust.

[InvisibleBallots]

67. Kerry was ALWAYS rich, grew up RICH, married RICH, stayed RICH

So you can boo-hoo all you want about his grandfather - doesn't mean jack shit. Kerry is a rich aristocrat, he acts like it - and he FAILED MISERABLY at beating Bush.

[JI7]

72. he didn't grow up rich, his dad was a government worker

a foreign service officer. his aunt paid for his education because neither of his parents had the money to afford it. in that way he was priviledged but not rich.

i have rich relatives who can afford to help me out in the same way. but i am not rich or wealthy myself.

that's how things are in large families sometimes. not everyone has the same amount of money.

[InvisibleBallots]

79. "he didn't grow up rich" - LOL! Keep them coming!

Keep the jokes coming, I for one appreciate them! :) :) :)

[Doomsayer13]

84. I guess FDR is a DINO sell out who didn't understand the poor either.

give it a rest

[InvisibleBallots]

85. did I say that?

FDR was rich, and widely considered a "traitor to his class" because he stood up for working people.

Kerry isn't fit to spit shine FDR's shoes. Please, give it a rest.

[TayTay]

98. He grew up in upper-middle class comfort

His mother was one of 11 children of a prominent family. The family fortune was diluted by the time Rosemary Forbes married and her inheritance was small. Her husband worked for a living and collected a paycheck because he needed the money in order to feed his family. The Kerry children were educated from funds donated by a 'maiden' aunt, otherwise the education at Swiss boarding schools and St. Pauls would not have happened. I happen to live near the town where Kerry's parents lived the last 30 years or so of their lives and I can post pictures to prove that it was a nice place, but it was no mansion. Would you care to see them?

Both of Kerry's wives had money. His first wife was connected to East Coast royalty (a metaphor, of course) but the purse strings were pretty tightly controlled. His housing purchases were done with mortgages (like mine) that required regular payments, not bulk sum arrangements. As mortgage records are a matter of public record, filed in probate court, you might want to investigate these in Lowell and other towns. Bill of sale and property transfer deeds are available for inspection and some reporters who have covered prominent pols for years have actually seen them.

Most old money Boston families had diluted fortunes. The money you discuss, the so-called Brahmin money is from the very old days of the whaling and shipping industries. It declined over the years, as did the general economy of New England. You know, as an expert of course, that technically speaking New England entered into a recession/depression around 1915 or so and didn't really emerge until the Massachusetts Miracle of the 1970's. (Delining industry produced very few fortunes that were based on legitimate industry.) There were a very very few Boston families that retained the 'old money' from the pre-civil war days. A family with more than two principle heirs can find that it's fortunes rarely survive a few generations. (This was never Rockefeller money, btw. They were nice, but not spectacular, fortunes.)

[LittleClarkie]

106. From a New Yorker profile

"Kerry has never been the most sociable fellow. He grew up lonely: his father was a foreign-service officer who was rarely home; his mother was a member of the aristocratic Forbes family—they made their fortune in the China trade—but she was one of eleven siblings and the fortune had been subdivided into insignificance by the time John Kerry’s generation came along. He was brought up among the wealthy, but his was a threadbare, erstwhile aristocracy. There were many houses, most of them other people’s houses: in Brittany (a Forbes family estate, where his mother had spent much of her youth); on Naushon Island, just off Cape Cod (another Forbes retreat); in Washington; in Groton, Massachusetts. He had been sent to boarding school in Switzerland, and hated it (he speaks fluent French and some Italian). He was then sent to boarding school in the United States, to St. Paul’s, in Concord, New Hampshire. He was one of a handful of Catholic students; they were sent to Mass on Sunday in a taxi."

Actually, he went away to school because of a rich maiden aunt. There was money in the family, but Kerry's wing of it was fairly middle class, if upper middle. He certainly had a more pedestrian upbringing than Bush.

Even now, most of the money belongs to Teresa. She owns something like 5 houses. He owns one with her that he had to mortgage for the campaign. I believe they even have a prenup that separates her money from his.

Point two: Share the failure. The negativity didn't help. Not only did we need a reason not to vote for Bush. We needed a reason to vote for Kerry. The lesson: don't try to support candidates you don't really support. We were in this campaign together, not just Kerry.

Point three: what is up with the anti-rich bias. So what? So freakin' what? And...?

And as for being from an aristocratic family, I've been told that about my family. We came over with the Huguenots. My family owned the warehouse that was turned into Libby Prison. Big deal. I ain't got squat.

Lastly, unless you've actually checked out the man's history yourself, and the way you're talking I can tell you haven't, I wouldn't shoot down others who have and are trying to clue you in. They and I are pulling things from his biography, and you're just saying "yeah right." It makes you look like a militantly ignorant uniformed ass.

He has not always been rich. He acts the way he acts more because he was sent away to school and learned to guard his feelings than because he's some sort of aristocrat.

[elshiva]

108. Good points, LittleClarkie,

"He has not always been rich. He acts the way he acts more because he was sent away to school and learned to guard his feelings than because he's some sort of aristocrat." This is my impression of him too. Some of my uncles were sent away, too. One of them lives in Vermont and is all quiet and guarded too...
Anyway this is bigger than Kerry, this is not just Kerry's fault. Too focus on him in this way is to feed into negativity when we dems need it the least.
I'M A LITTLECLARKIE FAN, YAY!

[InvisibleBallots]

113. you don't get the "anti-rich bias", Little Clarkie?

Too bad, you will soon enough.

[LittleClarkie]

129. That was the best you could do for a rebuttal

No, I won't.

Wanna know why?

As it relates to Kerry, I've given the man a good hard look. He had to win me over. I did not like him when he beat Clark and won the nomination. I do believe he is a good man.

Greetings, perhaps you've seen my writeup in Newsweek. I am one of the "intensely loyal."

[InvisibleBallots]

133. I stopped reading Newsweek a while ago

When they started printing pro-Bush lies about WMD in 2002 - I cancelled my subscription.

[American Tragedy]

155. Why don't you help us out?

I don't think any of us get it.

[InvisibleBallots]

132. I don't care

I know full well about Kerry's record of miserable failure, and so does everyone else. You may continue to collaborate with him and excuse him if you wish. No sweat off my back - I expected he would lose - my only regret is that I didn't fight him enough earlier, and that I didn't make common cause with the Dean supporters when I should have - THAT was my mistake, nobody's fault but mine.

"He has not always been rich. He acts the way he acts more because he was sent away to school and learned to guard his feelings than because he's some sort of aristocrat."

Fuck Kerry the Loser, and the rest of his boarding school, frat-boy bullshit supporters.

[LittleClarkie]

138. Ahem.

"I know full well about Kerry's record of miserable failure..."

If all you see is miserable failure, I don't believe you when you say you even looked. He's fought more corruption than anyone in Washington. I saw a recent article out of India that indicated he's still fighting the BCCI fight, and that's for people who can't vote for him in a place where most Americans can't even see what he's doing. And yet there he was, blasting the Bank of England.

"...and so does everyone else."

Everyone else? Populating your fantasy world now, are we? I do not excuse him. I just know him better than you do.

"I expected he would lose."

And it was people like you who helped him lose. Negative campaigning doesn't work. Remember that for next time.

"Fuck Kerry the Loser..."

He'd have to buy me dinner first. I ain't that easy.

Who am I kidding. Piddy pat.

"boarding school, frat-boy bullshit supporters"

Geez, dude, do you have any idea how long ago that frat boy shit was? Wanna criticize him on something perhaps a bit more recent, maybe?

[MajorFlaw]

9. Kerry is not our enemy. Don't be silly.

n/t

[KC21304]

11. They are not being silly. They think they are clever.

[MajorFlaw]

14. Where's the cleverness. I can certainly understand the anger and

frustration that Kerry will not be sworn in on 1/20, but when did he become the enemy. Is it really the feeling here that Kerry is almost as evil as shrub? That's absurd on its face.

[hyphenate]

102. No, it's not the general sentiment

that Kerry is hated around here. It's the general sentiment that those who hate him most are really not Democrats, though, but people who have a far different agenda than trying to keep our party united.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

118. People who don't like Kerry aren't really Democrats?

They have a far different agenda? You sound paranoid.

[InvisibleBallots]

24. yeah, don't be silly

Kerry supported the war, and he kept quiet about the voting machine problems. He was supposed to be our standard bearer. How many times is this going to happen before people wise up?

Look at who Kerry is - look at his freaking middle name for God's sake. Look where he went to school - look who his frat brothers are. Look at his role in Iran Contra and BCCI.

Silly is fine, just don't be stupid.

[Straight Shooter]

35. See my Post #33 about the name Forbes and then define stupidity

Jeebers. On the basis of a name, eh? Well, I have EXTREMELY wealthy relatives, then. I'm glad I found out that all it takes is a name to prove you're privileged. :eyes:

[InvisibleBallots]

43. I already proved you wrong, Straight Shooter, here's the link AGAIN

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5723115/

So say British researchers who predict Democratic challenger John Kerry will oust President Bush on Nov. 2 simply because he boasts more royal connections than his Republican rival.

After months of research into Kerry’s ancestry, Burke’s Peerage, experts on British aristocracy, reported on Monday that the Vietnam War veteran is related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Russian czar Ivan the Terrible, a previous emperor of Byzantium and the shahs of Persia.

Burke’s director Harold Brooks-Baker said Kerry had his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to thank for most of his royal connections.

“Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president,” Brooks-Baker said. “Because of the fact that every presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has always won the November presidential election, the coming election — based on 42 previous presidents — will go to John Kerry.”

Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

[Straight Shooter]

46. Oh, puleeze, spare me the antiquated genealogical background

I'm related to royalty, too. BFD. A lot of good it does me now, eh? My family name sure hasn't opened any doors for me, even if it does raise an eyebrow now and then. Any influence it had has been dissolved many generations ago.

The OP raised a serious query, and you proved the point. I'm in agreement with the other posters who feel that you are probably unhappy here at DU and maybe you would be more comfortable elsewhere. We've had too many Kerry-bashing posts which are totally nonproductive and maybe you would like to write Senator Kerry with your grave concerns about his performance as a candidate. I'm sure if you approach him rationally and without histrionics, you stand a chance of receiving a reply.

[InvisibleBallots]

52. first you deny it, now you admit it, but try to down play it

You first claimed that Kerry wasn't related to the prominent Forbes family. I proved you wrong, now you are saying it doesn't matter. Kerry's MOTHER was the heir to one of the richest fortunes in the US - Kerry went to goddamn PRIVATE BOARDING SCHOOL IS SWITZERLAND with a bunch of other royal kids, and you're still trying to pretend that he's not from a prominent rich family.

Keep it up, half the people will believe you.

[JI7]

62. he is related to jews killed in the holocaust also

[InvisibleBallots]

70. so what? Who the hell cares?

He is related to Jews killed in the Holocaust - who gives a shit? He's still a rich aristocrat from one of the richest families in the US, he's frat-brothers with Bush and kept his mouth shut about the theft of the elections in 2000 and Diebold and all the voting problems now.

So who cares about Kerry? What the hell good is he anyway?

[JI7]

74. then why are you spending so much time attacking him on his family

background ? his family background includes Jews who were killed in the holocaust . it includes a grandfather who killed himself because he was broke leaving young kids. and it includes a father who was a government worker and was not wealthy.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[JI7]

83. i never pretended he didn't have rich relatives

i was talking about his parents.

[American Tragedy]

154. What is with your fixation on individual wealth?

Why are you so obsessed with his socioeconomic status? There's a hell of a lot more to life and to human character than material comfort. Not to mention it's fucking prejudiced.

[saracat]

107. Some people are blind! Forbes does not =Money!

Kerry actually wore hand me down clothes from time to time.These were NOT rich people. He had a good education. That is ALL he got. please. Even if that geneological site is right prove that it gives him money! I went to school with a kid that was the proven last decendent of the Plantegents and hense probably the "real" king of England. He didn't have two nickels to rub together. I take this personally as I also grew up in a family that everyone thought had money because we had several houses, but we didn't. I didn't have nearly the sztuff my friends did because my parent's had to spend all their money on keeping the houses in the family!

[InvisibleBallots]

117. Kerry actually wore hand me down clothes from time to time

"These were not rich people"

bWA HA HA HA HA LOL HA HA HEE HEE HEE HAH AHA HAHA HA HA HA Whew!

I cannot believe this shit! This is the funniest shit I have ever read in my entire life! I assume that someone is trying to make a joke!

[saracat]

122. His mother didn't inheirit money! She was one of eleven children.

Get your facts straight. His aunt paid for his education.His Aunt said she often gave him his cousin's clothes. Believe what you wanr.Some people just prefer gossip to the truth.

[hyphenate]

44. You know, if you hate John Kerry

so much, perhaps you would feel more at home on a NON-Democratic site which doesn't have anything to do with politics. Many of us here have our misgivings about many people in our political system, but we don't go so far as to bashing one of our most prominent statesmen, especially one who had 52% of the voting citizenry in the 2004 election.

If you supported someone else, that's fine--our political party tried very hard to unite us in a terrible time. We really don't need people who are doing their damnedest to divide us all again. Criticism of politicians is one thing, but "hatred" of them to the extent that some people have been doing seems to me to be more of an effort to do that very thing.

If you must criticise John Kerry to the extent where it is obvious hatred, you are doing nothing but furthering the radical right wing's cause, NOT doing anything to support the party you say you belong to.

[InvisibleBallots]

45. I posted facts

and speculations about Kerry's motives. I could bash Lieberman all day long, or Zell Miller, and I bet you wouldn't care. So, it's obviously not the bashing of Democrats that you have a problem with, now is it?

Don't blame me if your favorite candidate is a loser, and won't stand up for fair elections. That's your problem, not mine.

I don't hate Kerry. I don't care enough about him to hate him.

"you are doing nothing but furthering the radical right wing's cause, NOT doing anything to support the party you say you belong to."

John Kerry - and his syncophants on DU - have done far more to further the right-wing cause then I ever could.

[hyphenate]

105. Actually,

unless the person is a puke in power, or whose last name ended in Bush and first name begins with G, J, or N, I never bash them, and I find those who disrespect others just plain nasty.

You have proven over and over again with your postings, including this one thread, that you are not really a true Democrat, nor a true DUer.

As Forrest Gump's mom said, "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, you shouldn't say anything at all." I think that is especially wise for you to follow. You seem to have contributed little to DUer other than a lot of hostility, rancor and animosity. If we don't suit your needs as a group, I can recommend others to you.

[InvisibleBallots]

114. I can recommend plenty to you as well, hypenate

"unless the person is a puke in power, or whose last name ended in Bush and first name begins with G, J, or N, I never bash them, and I find those who disrespect others just plain nasty"

I find those who stand up for GOP-Lite collaborators to be nasty. Imagine.

"You have proven over and over again with your postings, including this one thread, that you are not really a true Democrat, nor a true DUer."

what, pray tell, are you criteria for being a "true Democrat" - or even, laughably, a "true DUer"?

"As Forrest Gump's mom said, "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, you shouldn't say anything at all." I think that is especially wise for you to follow."

I don't know whether to laugh at you, or with you? :shrug: ?

"You seem to have contributed little to DUer other than a lot of hostility, rancor and animosity. If we don't suit your needs as a group, I can recommend others to you."

I'd recommend trying to pay attention, hyphenate - politics isn't for cowards, nor the ignorant.

[merh]

109. His role in Iran Contra & BCCI?

If it were not for him and Senator Heinz, the investigation of the BCCI and Iran Contra would have been swept under the repug's rug! You live in a world of hate and anger and it has clouded your ability to accept facts and to recognize the truth! How pathetic.

[InvisibleBallots]

134. yeah, thanks to Kerry

BCCI and Iran Contra are as well known as Nixon's Watergate. :eyes: Sucker - it's spelled with one "S".

[merh]

137. So you would have preferred he had followed poppy's

instructions and ignored the crimes? I can think of a name for folks that share your perverse take on life and it does not start with an "S".

[InvisibleBallots]

143. Kerry did better than ignore the crimes

he started a fake "investigation" that covered the whole thing up.

Where was Kerry when Gary Webb was being attacked? Oh that's right - Kerry was keeping quiet, just like he did about the Bush family in general, 911, the voting fraud, and everything else related to his frat-brother George Bush.

"Sucker" is spelled with an "S".

[merh]

144. You are out of your mind!

See what envy does to the psyche!

[InvisibleBallots]

150. yeah, that line always wins elections!

Tell us working class people that used to vote for Democrats that we're all just envious of Kerry's money, and that's why we won't vote for the rich bastard. Perhaps that will keep you comforted during your election losses!

[merh]

151. Jealous drips from your every post about the man.

You have no facts to back up your accusations and your slams, you just slam him because he is rich. How sad for you.

[merh]

156. We can't win elections as long as members of the party

distort the truth about the candidate. But then again, there is serious reservation about those folks that do distort the truth and their party allegiance.

[merh]

152. Kerry isn't responsible for Webb, either directly or indirectly.

He didn't cover up the investigation or conduct a fake investigation, he pursued it despite the efforts of poppy's and his admin to derail it. Do you just make this stuff up as you go or is your mind so twisted with jealous and resentment that it can't help but twist reality?

The "S" is for you, so "SAD", so pathetic.

[LandOLincoln]

148. So you're a Dean supporter, are you?

Poor Howard, who, as everyone knows, grew up in the slums of the Lower East Side, attended public schools, went to Yale on a scholarship, had to wait tables for pocket money... :eyes:

[Dr Ron]

12. It's bad enough when Rove...

runs the campaign based upon distorting Kerry's positions. We sure don't need that here.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen on DU!

And I've seen plenty...

:eyes:

[blm]

68. Kerry submitted legislation to repeal parts of the Patriot Act in Dec 2003

And if you can't see the difference between Kerry and Bush then that is YOUR delusion and I pity you on your sense of perception.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[bunny planet]

120. oh snooze to you!!!!!!!!!!!

:hi:

and Buh-bye!

[InvisibleBallots]

121. Buh-bye bunny planet!

:hi:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Misunderestimator]

16. Seconded.

[hyphenate]

13. I completely agree

Some people are sourpussing on Kerry, but fail to recognize that he DID win the election fair and square, but it seems that repuke election theft and fraud made it appear it wasn't so.

Kerry was the target of very successful fascist propagandists like Karl Rove, Limpballs, the religious assholes, and others who knew exactly how, when and where to strike. They protected their arrogant cowardly asshole by making Kerry look like the criminal. Can you truly, truly imagine how half this country could consider a coward forgoing his duty in the Vietnam War over someone who actually DID go to war as a "stronger president?" No--it was the right wing conspirators who managed to pull off that heinous task with aplomb.

If people here at DU are making nasty comments about John Kerry, and I don't care who they are, or how many posts they've got to their name, they have obviously bought into that very same propaganda, and should be ashamed to call themselves either DUers or Democrats. It's not a contest to see which politicians are "better" Democrats or not, because, frankly, we were lucky to have a strong candidate like Kerry at the helm. We DIDN'T have someone else in that position, regardless of how much we think we should have. There is no alternate universe in which Howard Dean, General Clark, Dennis Kucinich, or any one of the other well-respected and well-regarded potential nominees were the candidate of choice. Before the primaries, we were ALL ABB.

Failure to see the plain, unadulterated truth--that the smear campaign against John Kerry is even infiltrating the thoughts of people who absolutely hate GWB--is something we all need to see and remember. Our enemy is NOT JFK--it IS the right wing fascists and those who support them.

Kerry bashing will not lead to any changes at this point. Kerry bashing will only lead to more disruption, more division of the Democratic party, and most especially, lead to discord among those of us who want to change the regime as much as we are able. Do we really need to split the Democratic party into other factions? It's not healthy for our party under ANY circumstances.

If people still yearn for their original candidates, that's great--support them in their upcoming goals and agenda. Don't knock one of the others in supporting your own choices. Each and every one of those candidates is worthy of support, and each and every role they play in the future will be sorely needed as we make our presence known in upcoming elections, upcoming events and upcoming projects.

Never forget: we are Democrats, we are Liberals, and we have the right to continue our dissent and our criticism of a government that is never going to be in any way good until we have run the repukes out of it.

[yinkaafrica]

17. I would like to know why he conceded in the face of torrential fraud

Nothing tricky about the question.
Do you feel well served by his early, meek concession?
Did he represent your best interests by not starting
a BIG fight right then and there.
I wanted him to fight. I think it was a horrific
error to play politics as usual with my right to vote.

[MajorFlaw]

18. What should he have done. I am not looking for loud or symbolic types

of protest, but a real plan for Kerry to have reversed the results of the hacked election. If you had woken up in Kerry's shoes on 11/3, even knowing all you do now, what would you have done to un fix the results. If anyone can tell me what Kerry could have done which would have reversed the outcome, I will then blame him for not doing it. I can't blame him for choosing not to engage in a loud but futile protest even though it would have been satisfying to see.

[hyphenate]

19. His early concession speech

was an attempt, I'm sure, to thwart the radical right wing. If you recall, the media tore Al Gore apart in 2000 when he protested the results from Florida. He was made to look like a fool and a sore loser, without regard to the truth at all.

Kerry's "concession" speech was, IMHO, a cover--to use the many different facilities to protest the Ohio results, and to do so at a level which did not make him look like a total fool. By getting himself out of the limelight, any further voter fraud and election theft could be put directly on the shoulders of those who performed it.

It seems likely now that the duplicitous workings of people like Kenneth Blackwell would never have come to light if Kerry had stayed in the spotlight. And the further culpability of the repukes in a nasty election would only be shown if the limelight were not on Kerry.

People have got to remember that many of the charges against the fraud and deception in Ohio have been backed and made by either those sympathetic to the Democratic party, or have been pushed by groups that certainly aren't associated with the pukes. As both Edwards and Kerry are lawyers, I'm sure that there has been a lot of discussion on all fronts on the best way to expose this fraud and theft.

Regardless of why Kerry went quiet so quickly, it was not because he was a coward--it was a move to expose the right wing more fully and more totally in all their illegitimate glory. Even more important to remember is what we have learned since 2000--we know the pukes will stop at nothing to win the presidency. And once again, this election proved it. How ironic that "we" are watching over elections in other countries, when the bastion of evil in our own government prevents US from having a truly legitimate election, eh?

We have not seen the last of John Kerry or John Edwards. The coming years will be fraught with more illegitimacy, more theft, more fraud, and more and more nastiness. We need them to know that we understand the need for some diplomacy at this time, that unless we show the arrogance of the right wing to those morons in our own country that helped give them a large vote, we will never be able to get the evil fascists out. They will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of far too many, and the outcome will continue to be the same.

[Deja Q]

41. It's fun to read into things, but I think you may have a very good point.

Either way, Kerry won't say anything in fear of losing credibility.

However, that's going to happen regardless.

Candidates get only one shot at the presidency, unless they win. OTOH, people tend to quickly forget things - which is probab;y why 40 of the 59 million people voted for him in '04.

[OrwellwasRight]

111. "we know the pukes will stop at nothing to win the presidency"

Then why do you make excuses for Democrats who do less than everything they can in response to the Repubs? To concede is to doom the party to bigger and bigger losses.

The "voter fraud and election losses" were not put on the back of those responsible as a result of Kerry's non-action. Instead, with the Dem leadership staying a mile away from the "controversy" (apparently it scares them), it was left to people like Bev Harris and the Congressional Black Caucus to make the arguments for them.

As such, the claims were dismissed in the mainstream media. Even so-called "liberal" papers like the NYT mocked and laughed at those who were merely trying to make sure that the promise of the Voting Rights Act was fulfilled,

Nope. We need leadership to legitimize the claims. Otherwise, we are just seen as web wackies, and our comments are marginalized.

If we can't criticize the decisions of our own leadership, then we are no different than the Repubs, who countenance no criticism of theirs.

[wtmusic]

15. If Kerry had been elected

he would have been everone's personal saviour. He came very close.

[Bouncy Ball]

21. Hear, hear.

[neebob]

23. Up to now I hadn't indulged in too much bashing

but now that you mention it, I'd really rather have had the opportunity to vote for Kucinich or Dean, or maybe even Wes Clark - anyone who didn't have to explain why they voted to give El Dorko the authority to go to war would have been fine - and lost. Plus I'm pretty sure Dennis or Howard would still be fighting the good fight. Dunno about Clark, but I've totally learned my lesson about holding my nose.

People are rightfully mad at Kerry, and I don't think it's diverting any more resources or attention away from Bush than, say, running back to your cushy Senate job - AFTER PROMISING TO HANG IN UNTIL THE LAST VOTE IS COUNTED - and having your staff send beggy emails about election reform. But that's just me.

[mdmc]

25. kerry let us down

and we bash him for it.

[cabbol]

27. what should we expect from an insider

I am one of those people who is absolutely furious with Kerry. The fact is the majority of Americans put there faith in this guy, but he utterly failed to understand the degree to which this administration would sink to win. Why is it that a bunch of normal citizens at DU have been talking about election fraud since 2000 and yet a man in the know, with access and power was NOT prepared for this action. The man failed this nation. I could pick dozens of people on this site alone who would have done a better job preparing for the fraud. Kerry was NOT prepared. The question is Why? With all the evidence from 2000 how could he be that naive? or stupid? or complicit? Anyone of those things makes him unfit for office. Lets face it we lost this election in the primaries when the mass media choose our candidate.

[InvisibleBallots]

31. why give him the benefit of the doubt?

Kerry knew everything we did, much more. What makes you think he was naive, or stupid? I don't believe that for a second. Kerry knew exactly what he was (not) doing.

Look at Kerry's entire history - whenever the Bush familiy is in trouble - Kerry shows up to "lead the opposition" - always leading the opposition nowhere. It's been going on since the 1980s - how many more times until people wise up?

[merh]

110. Who the hell was president and in power when Kerry pursued the

BCCI and Iran-Contra? Who the hell granted pardons to those that were indicted for their involvement in Iran-Contra and BCCI?

You're anger and fogged sense of reality is very sad indeed.

[InvisibleBallots]

116. sad indeed, merh

You can count me in the long line of people who were suckered into believing Kerry was on our side - fortuntately, I wised up about 1992 - what's your excuse?

[merh]

119. He is on my side. I know you are not.

Keep pushing your luck, you will slip up soon.

You don't even live in reality, do you?

[InvisibleBallots]

124. I agree, you are probably not on my side

Of that I have little doubt. You stick to Kerry, go right ahead, and enjoy his silence in the face of Bush's victory.

"You don't even live in reality, do you?"

I wonder when you started paying attention, merh? During the primaries? Heh. Kerry's been around for a long, long time - I've been paying attentions since the beginning. You?

[merh]

127. From the beginning.

I also can read the facts and can see that your perverted envy of anyone with a family name that is tied to wealth or royal blood gets your blood boiling to the point that your objectivity is clouded. It must be hard living a life filled with hate and envy.

[InvisibleBallots]

139. "perverted envy of anyone with a family name that is tied to wealth or roy

al blood...

Hi merh! :hi:

You don't get it! You will!

[merh]

142. No, I get it, you have wealth envy

what a silly waste of energy :silly:

[saracat]

145. Why doesn't the Dean background and money bother you?

He had a lot more money than Kerry growing up and the same aristocratic background? Aren't you inconsistant?

[InvisibleBallots]

149. actually, there is a very simple difference

I know you'd like to paint me as a Deanie, but I'm not - sorry. I didn't vote for Dean in the primary (although with hindsight, I probably would have).

Kerry grew up with far more money than Dean - and all truthful people admit it - but Dean showed backbone, spine, and stood up for Democratic values - while Kerry supported the war and supported Bush. That's the difference.

Also, even though it hardly matters - Kerry was clear that he wouldn't break his "Bonesmen's oath" for the election. I was surprised at this - I didn't think that the Skull & Bones thing was all that serious or a big deal - evidentally, Kerry did.

So, you keep Kerry and Bush and the rest of the Yalie Frat Boy Yuppies - I'll take Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and Dennis Kucinich.

[rasputin1952]

89. Welcome to DU cabbol...

:D...:hi:

[SheilaT]

28. Since when is expressing

anger and dismay over Kerry's early concession considered bashing?

I'm so fucking tired of hearing that he did it to unite the party, not to be considered a sore loser, and so on and suchlike crap. He promised not to concede until all the votes were counted, and they were far from all counted when he gave up.

[njdemocrat106]

29. I second your opinions

I like both Kerry and the other Democatic primary candidates. I think if we elected any one of them, our country would have been a better place. I'm sorry, but John Kerry never let me down. Yes, I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the election, but I think any recount of Ohio just would have shown that Bush won. I am flat out furious that there are 59 million people in this country who think the Shrub is doing a good job.

[JI7]

47. what is John Kerry's family background on his father's side of the family

?

[Zero Division]

48. And why is it ok for people to post so many unconstructive attacks

Do those who strongly disagree with Kerry's recent actions/statements or his victory in the primaries really have to call Kerry a "coward, loser, self-serving ass, or just as much the enemy as Bush" over and over and over again to get their point across?

Some people on DU right now seem way more obsessed with attacking Democrats who are still supported by many DUers, such as Kerry, in the most inflamatory manner they possibly can. IMHO, it's not constructive criticism by any reasonable standard and it can only lead to a harmful level of acrimony on DU.

[InvisibleBallots]

54. sorry, they are CONSTRUCTIVE attacks

Attacking those Democrats - like Kerry - who are either too complicit or too cowardly to actually prevail against Republicans helps us WIN national elections - something that Kerry supporters know next to nothing about evidentally.

[Zero Division]

56. That's YOUR opinion, and it does not need to be stated in an

inflamatory manner, such as: "something that Kerry supporters know next to nothing about evidently".

The fact that you find it to be an absolute truth does not by itself make it "constructive criticism".

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

58. No they're not

n/t

[InvisibleBallots]

82. yes, they most certainly are

The Democratic party, and the working/middle class in America, is under attack from faux-Democrats and corporate-sponsored whores, who pretend to be on our side but sell us out at every opportunity.

Exposing their bullshit is constructive.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

86. Nope

In this exact thread, you've accused Kerry of everything from being allied with Bush because of his Skull & Bones connection to actually covering for Bush's father during the Iran/Contra affair and the BCCI investigation without providing a single bit of proof. Oh, and don't forget the fact that he's RICH RICH RICH RICH RICH.

And you've called every Kerry supporter on this board a "sycophant" (I corrected your spelling for you.)

Your posts in this thread (and others) are aggressive and mocking, and so I ask you: how is that a "CONSTRUCTIVE" attack.

[InvisibleBallots]

91. Nope, your post is a lie

"you've accused Kerry of everything from being allied with Bush because of his Skull & Bones connection to actually covering for Bush's father during the Iran/Contra affair and the BCCI investigation without providing a single bit of proof."

Almost, but not quite. Either Kerry was covering for Bush during Iran/Contra and BCCI, or he simply failed miserably at exposing them. You tell me - which is Kerry - a mole or a failure?

"Oh, and don't forget the fact that he's RICH RICH RICH RICH RICH."

Yes, that's true as well. Are you going to pretend it's not?

"And you've called every Kerry supporter on this board a "sycophant" (I corrected your spelling for you.)"

No, not every Kerry supporter - but PLENTY. And thanks for the spelling correction.

"Your posts in this thread (and others) are aggressive and mocking, and so I ask you: how is that a "CONSTRUCTIVE" attack."

Corporate Whores should be mocked aggressively. The fact your reaction is hostile makes me feel I'm doing my job. Thanks.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

95. So how is my post a lie?

I said that you've accused Kerry of all these things WITHOUT PROOF.

Your reply was "Almost, but not quite. Either Kerry was covering for Bush during Iran/Contra and BCCI, or he simply failed miserably at exposing them. You tell me - which is Kerry - a mole or a failure?"

You still didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, so it's just that: opinion.

And no, you called all Kerry supporters on this board psycophants. I take you to your post at # 45 and I quote: "John Kerry - and his syncophants on DU - have done far more to further the right-wing cause then I ever could."

My reation to your post was to quote you exactly, so how is that hostile?

[InvisibleBallots]

97. the *proof* is public record

I posted *proof* of Kerry's aristocratic background - no one disputes it. Kerry's (in)actions after the election is public knowledge.

"Your reply was "Almost, but not quite. Either Kerry was covering for Bush during Iran/Contra and BCCI, or he simply failed miserably at exposing them. You tell me - which is Kerry - a mole or a failure?"

You still didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, so it's just that: opinion."

Excuse me? Are you serious? Are you going to argue that Kerry was *successful* at prosecuting Bush for Iran/Contra and BCCI? Which prison is Bush Sr. cooling his heels in?

"And no, you called all Kerry supporters on this board psycophants. I take you to your post at # 45 and I quote: "John Kerry - and his syncophants on DU - have done far more to further the right-wing cause then I ever could.""

How does this in any way imply that all Kerry supporters are? Feeling defensive? I certainly didn't accuse you of being a syncophant - are you?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

101. You're diverting the subject. (Again)

I wasn't asking for "proof" of Kerry's aristrcratic background. I was referring to your baseless accusation that Kerry was in league with Bush Sr. during the Iran/Contra affair. You've still offered no proof of that. Just your opinion. (that ignores several facts in this case.)

You do know the reason that Reagan and Bush are not in jail, don't you? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Kerry. it was Bush Sr, who was then President, who signed a Presidential Pardon for Casper Weinberger before Weinberger's trial. Once that pardon was signed, there was little else Kerry or anyone could do. Weinberger didn't have to testify to squat, but you'd rather put the blame at Kerry's feet rather than Bush Sr's feet.

Based on the "logic" you presented, since Marcia Clark couldn't get O. J. Simpson behind bars, then she obviously was secretly on Simpson's side. Sheesh. :eyes:

[InvisibleBallots]

126. Do I need to offer proof that Kerry FAILED to convict Bush?

Do I need to offer proof that Kerry failed to prosecute Bush for anything related to Iran/Contra or BCCI? I'm sure I can come up with some links - I didn't realize that people thought he was successful in any way? :shrug: ?

I don't blame Kerry for Iran Contra - but I'm sure as hell not going to kiss his ass for failing so miserably at "trying" to prosecute it.

If I were the suspicious, conspiracy theory type - and I'm not - I would say Kerry was probably in on it from the beginning. But I'm not going to.

[Padraig18]

63. The circular firing squad always has lots of ammo, Ras!

I frankly question the motives of some of these anti-Kerry posters, and their true intentions here at DU...

[JI7]

64. remember Seventhson

most of the attacks on this thread from a certain poster remind me of him.

[Zero Division]

66. Holy Crap! I was just thinking the exact same thing.

The pattern does fit.

[KC21304]

76. Me too !

I was getting ready to post the same thing. I went soooooo many rounds with him I can't help but recognize the style.

[InvisibleBallots]

99. yes I remember him too

I didn't buy all of his conspiracy theories about Skull & Bones - my personal opinion is that S&B is a distraction - but I certainly agree with the major themes of his posts.

[T Town Jake]

75. "Seventhson" was tombstoned....

....and is not currently around to defend himself. So what's that about? Ahhhh, but I think we know...

What it boils down to, really, is that you dislike those so-called "attacks" and find yourself unable and/or unwilling to respond to them coherently, so you dredge up the memory of a tombstoned poster and attack the poster still-current by proxy, so to speak...

Weak. Cheap. Pathetic. Silly. Does that just about cover it (what I think of that sort of tactic, that is)?

Yep, it pretty much does...

[JI7]

this poster called people like me "sycophants" and said we

are helping the right wingers with their agenda.

so, yeah, i really do dislike those kind of "attacks" as you say.

[T Town Jake]

94. Fine by me...

...by all means, go after him/her (the current offending poster) in the here and now. My objection was a philosophical one, really, and I'll give you an example pertinent to me as proof of consistency: once upon a recent past, I used to post frequently in the fabled Gungeon, and on the "unpopular" (i.e., anti-gun control) side. A poster I often sparred with was of the "popular" sort: the positions he took lent themselves to nary a "freeper" accusation on any occasion that I ever witnessed. As well they shouldn't have...
That poster is gone, and I'm still RKBA. I would no more bring his name up and start presenting/defending a position based upon some distant post of his to reinforce an argument of my own. He's no longer here to respond - and I respect that. "Seventhson," whom I disagreed with (employ "search") from time to time, falls into the same category for me. Just my two cents.

[KC21304]

93. If you had been here during 2003

and maybe you were, I don't know, you would know what we are talking about. Some of us heard this same anti-Kerry - frat brothers- really on the same side as Bush - rich family- skull and bones, day in and day out. Only after Kerry got the nomination did he seem ( or pretend ) to come around to supporting Kerry. And then on election night or soon after ......

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

78. I was actually thinking the exact same thing.

Eerily similar, eh?

[T Town Jake]

69. Absolutely agree...

...this nonsense has flared on and on and on through way too many of a tiresome thread.

Now is the time to unite, IMO, and fight on with renewed vigor.

[LWolf]

73. My thought:

I haven't engaged in any Kerry bashing. I'm well aware, though, that here at DU any criticism of a favored politician amounts to "bashing" in the eyes of that politician's supporters.

In my opinion, the best way to reduce bashing is to ignore it. When posts aren't responded to, threads sink quickly. The more you want to fight about it, the longer the fight goes on, and whatever it is you are fighting stays on the front page of the forum.

And even counterarguments focus attention on bashing, rather than more productive conversations.

On the other side of the coin, I don't think we all have to pretend to think that Kerry, or any candidate, is God's gift to America or the Democratic Party. I think it's ok to say that we disagree with, don't like, or don't support a Democrat when we don't think he is making the right decisions. That's not bashing.

Maybe there has been a lot of Kerry bashing going on; I haven't seen any. Of course, I don't follow too many conversations about the man.

I'm not impressed with Kerry. I never was. I was disappointed in the choice that Democratic voters made in the primaries; I was disappointed in what I perceived to be a pro-war convention and pro-war campaign. I suppressed my dismay. I donated to the man. I voted for him. And now I'm done with his candidacy and ready to move on.

[KC21304]

81. Do you think that saying Kerry is as much an enemy as Bush

is not Kerry bashing ?

[LWolf]

87. Sure it is.

I'm sure there have been some, just as I'm sure there have been some sensitive Kerry supporters that jump on statements like "I'm not impressed with Kerry" to cry bashing.

I just haven't read any of those posts. I keep hoping to discuss issues, and to formulate concrete plans for now, tomorrow, and next year.

[IronLionZion]

90. We've been bashing Republicans for so long

that some want to bash Democrats for a change. Why have the Republicans rake Kerry over the coals for the stupidest reasons when we can do it ourselves?

/obvious sarcasm

enough bashing already. try something more productive like running for political office http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1477509

[Swamp Rat]

92. Meanwhile...

[rasputin1952]

96. I'd like to say that Kerry was not my first choice for the nomination...

I voted for him because bush is the most destructive president this nation has ever had. This, at least to me, was the best thing I could have done to end the horror of the bush administration.

My entire point of this thread is borne out, easily I might add, in how people will bash Kerry rather than look to the real problem...bush.

I find it sad that we can still attack the nominee of the Democratic Party, simply because we have an axe to grind. My axe is bush...I will do everything legal and moral to have him removed from office.

Put simply, the election is over...this area of discussion is essentially moot. bush is the problem, not Kerry. IMHO, when people realize that, and begin to stand up and be heard...the whole bush house of cards will fall flat on its collective ass.

Fight the bush cabal....no one really cares about Kerry, Dean, Kucinich or any other candidate at this point. Stand up and fight the horror that is in control! If you do not, you will not get another chance in the near future; these people intend to ensure that you are little more than serfs, serving at the "Master's" pleasure.

[OrwellwasRight]

115. But Rasputin, how can we "fight the bush cabal"

effectively without at least a modicum of cooperation from the party leadership?


If this is the people, s party, don't we have the right to judge our leaders and the actions they take? Don't we have the right to support new leaders and to get rid of one that we determine are incompetent, ineffective, uncreative, or for any other reason do not measure up?

And why is that a circular firing squad or "bashing"?

I think being complacent with the way the campaign was run and the way decisions are made at the DNC is dangerous to our goal (getting our country back).

If we can't express our outrage here, then where can we? If we can't try to stir up others to never again accept less than stellar leadership here, there where can we?

[LittleClarkie]

130. There is a difference between "criticism" and "bashing"

What we're getting at the moment is mostly the backlash of a very disappointed people looking to aim that high emotion somewhere. I understand that. But it's not constructive. Hopefully that will subside and we can think clearly and reasonably.

I wouldn't mind criticism. But if something blatantly untrue as I know the fact is posted, I will attempt to correct that untruth. I would expect the same from those who support others. That is what bashing is to me. Not reasoned criticism but a screaming across the aisle at someone who's upset you by their actions, fairly or unfairly.

But in my eyes, we need to try and get past being so factious (is that the word? Not so split between one leader and another).

I would argue with Raspy on one point. The world may not care about any particular candidate any more, but we need to care about all of them as representatives of us. Can we work in the positive and not the negative. But in another sense, we need to get over the 2003 primary season as a whole.

It should be what can we do, not who do we bash. Save the true venom for Bush.

[OrwellwasRight]

141. I agree with your general points, but my concern is that

lots of posters around here do not distinguish between criticism and bashing.

A few posts up, somebody wrote something long the lines of "people who don't support Kerry aren't true Democrats."

I threw House parties, sent e-mails, wore buttons, gave more money than I've ever given any candidate ever, etc. for Kerry, but I find such statements and attitudes misguided and destructive.

[rasputin1952]

147. There is a vast chasm of difference between 'bashing' & criticizing...

Berating someone is not necessarily constructive criticism...it is too easy to just sit down and squeal, and not come up w/viable answers that will meet criteria to win in the future.

The thought here is to ensure we come up w/someone that can set the neo-cons back to the swamp they crawled from, not just sit around and complain about how things should have gone.

No politician can possibly enjoy a position where everyone is pleased with his positions or where he/she stands, there will always be some disenchanted individuals. The object is to find the common bonds and stay with them. Some things appeal to all progressives, Peace and Equality are two that come to mind...these are the things we need to work on. An easy target is Corporate Welfare, or unfair taxes placed on the Middle Class.

I won't mention to great lengths the assault on the Constitution...that, if worded correctly and explained to the populace, should be one of the easiest ways we can crush the cabal...but sitting here gets little done in the real world...we need to be out there educating people as to what is happening...then, we will win.

[LittleClarkie]

135. I dig where you're coming from, but with one quibble

As the former candidate against Bush, if that does indeed mean that he is the defacto leader of the party as some have said, some might actually care what Kerry is doing.

But what I would say is that we need to forget the primary battles, and support any person who is showing backbone against the Bush agenda. Hate Kerry, but if he comes up with something good, support it. Don't be thrilled with Dean, but if he comes up with something good, support it. Even Joementum.

Works in the other direction of course. Criticism is allowed of course. But I would suggest criticizing actions, not people though. Personal attacks are counterproductive.

And beyond that, we need to be doing our own work. Letters to the editor, standing on a few streetcorners and the like.

I've just seen today something I need to do. Scott Walker, the county executive in Milwaukee, WI, the one who fought to give Milwaukee less ballots than we'd had in the last two elections, and the coordinator of Bush's campaign here, is gearing up to go after our Democratic governor, Jim Doyle. That won't be an easy fight against Doyle, but Walker has popularity and an anti-property tax sentiment on his side. Hearing he's already after Doyle NOW made my blood run cold. What do I do. Suddenly I wanna get a Doyle button, real quick, and read up on the issues so that I'm ready for two years from now. If Walker is already getting ready by bashing Doyle, then I have to get ready now as well with the facts.

So that's what I'm doing on a local level. People need to find something to do with their energy.

[jmatthan]

104. After reading through this thread

one obvious fallacy becomes obvious.

I think all of you fail to understand that Kerry-Edwards were not the choice of the Democratic party.

Many of you have short memories about all the Nader supporters bashing, <Dean bashing, Kucinich bashing, that went on on this forum.
Many of you have short memories about the campaign of MoveOn.org, George Soros and many other 527 organisations.

Kerry-Edwards were the choice of the ABB group as put forward by the Democratic leadership. Their lack of consultation with that group before they conceded was a gross dereliction of duty. They failed to listen to them either before or after the election although they were quite happy to get their financial and moral support before the election.

Kerry's blue-blooded background, his Senate record, etc. have nothing to do with Kerry-bashing post election.

Kerry-Edwards ran from the fight when they should have stood up and fought, like the Ukrainian leader.

In my opinion, post election

a. Kerry - Edwards were incompetent
b. Kerry- Edwards failed to show up to face the people which makes them cowards
c. The personal emotions of Kerry-Edwards over-weighed the reality
d. Kerry-Edwards were out of touch with happenings on the ground and the people
e. Kerry-Edwards undermined the credibility of the Democratic Party

I could go on - but not being an American, this is only the perspective from one individual the other side of the Atlantic. We are not going to face the consequences - YOU ARE!!! We know how to put our house in order and preserve our Democracy.

When your Muslims are taken into detention in concentration camps, followed by...,
When your social security system is dismantled,
When your most valuable domestic assets are going to be bought over by the Chinese,
When you lose more jobs by outsourcing to India,
When you have no viable medical insurance system,
When every poor child is left behind,
When your land and forests are raped and plundered,
When Americans cannot travel around the world in safety like your present LEADER,
When people fail to visit the shores of America because of your paranoiac Patriot Act,
When you have a whole series of incompetent people running your Government and Judiciary as Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, (Bernie Kerik?), Alberto Gonzales, Scalia, (and much much more)....

remember that it is not that we who are affected - YOU ARE!!!

And that you continue to be ruled by the most hated person in the world (who is even more hated than Osama bin Laden) - that is your heritage willed to you by none else but Kerry-Edwards and YOUR INACTION.

By all means continue to support a toothless Democratic Party. But power lies in your hands and if you fail to change the leadership - then you get what you want!!

My remedy, get rid of all those who are useless and get behind those Democrats who act on YOUR behalf to get back YOUR POWER!!!

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[marcologico]

128. forget it, I'm not even going to bother.

[InvisibleBallots]

140. that is probably a wise decision

I concur.

[Lexingtonian]

146. I'm sorry

You seem to have bought very deeply into the hysterical variety of misinterpretations of recent events. It's a common error. It's also the single largest reason the Democratic Party base is as ineffectual as it is- it wallows in excuses and evasions and recriminations. As if indulging in them did anything other than affirm and strengthen the internalized conservatism and defeatism that, in reality, needs to be overcome.

A few of us have a rather more- how shall I say it- manful approach to the matter. On 'your' side of the Atlantic, if you are truthful about where you live, it may be a bit difficult to see the extent to which the present politics is about the American condition of a generation and two generations ago. A great deal had to be done right the first time during the last World War and immediately thereafter in the Cold War, without the American people as it was then becoming reconciled with the measures taken and changes incorporated into the society. You may not understand how colonial and, to a large extent, medieval the social condition was, and in part still is, in the parts of the country with least contact with civiliz- uh, the Modern world. A great deal of pre-Enlightenment Europe migrated here and a large part of their descendents have tried to stay culturally static to the day their ancestors left the Home Country, which is what colonial occupiers do, but their colonial occupier status corrupted them into aggressive anti-Modernism. Strictly speaking, we should blame Europe for the vast numbers and power of the uncivilized among us. Arguably it took you guys the 40-plus million dead of WW2 to change that sort of power balance on your side of the Atlantic halfway and 50 years with American help and nuclear weapons to wait out the other half, i.e. the stalemating and implosion of the Soviet Union.

So we here in the U.S. live in a political environment partially devoted to small adaptations to the world and our own society as it is in the present, but the dominant factor is resentment politics, which plays out as the recapitulation and rearguing of the past as if the future, and the Modern, are the most terrible enemy imaginable. Since a political watershed in 1968, or perhaps the one of 1980, the country has reexamined in quite chronological order its own decisions and dilemmas and internal developments since the 1920s. Under Reagan the things begun or completed in FDR's Presidencies was revisited, Bush Sr. gave us a revisiting of the Korean War in the form of the Kuwait war, Clinton's two terms as President were all about the social developments in the country that are associated with or begun in Eisenhower's time (feminism, ethnic segregation, federal government responsibility for the social condition).

Under George W. Bush we have so far recapitulated mostly the American foreign policy traumas of 1959 to about 1973, and reargued the social developments which are politically associated with the same time period. The sort of people who politicked that era- Kerry, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. among them- are, not coicidently, the people called upon to work it all over one more time.

Notice how we are continuing in that logic- Iraq is quietly being given up at a time coincident with the American politics of 1973-74 of getting out of Vietnam, abortion rights activists are concerned about a major political effort to change laws in that area coincident with the legalization in 1973, the economic concerns are oil/jobs/war costs/federal deficits/recession, the White House itself is entangled in scandals that don't seem serious and are downplayed or ignored.

People also prophesied gloom and doom and American demise worldwide at the time, the Soviet Union prevailing in 1974. They also told us we'd be a subsidiary of Japan in 1991. Now we're going to be an economic colony of China's, in the latest version of the meme of gross underestimation of American power and organization, when the country decides on it, since Hitler's and Tojo's faith in the like in 1941. It's still the richest and most powerful country in the world, the world needs- as always before- to decide whether it prefers a U.S. that has indulged in its internal fighting and corruption and selfdegradation or the one that is efficient, unified, and Has Plans for all other countries- to obey. I suggest that you might consider the matter carefully, and it may be in your better interest to prefer the U.S. that is inefficient.

Kerry has moved on to undermining the last two unwarranted beliefs/myths that average American swing voters hold about the Republican Party in its present incarnation. These are a perceived competence in military affairs and a perceived superior ability in power diplomacy. That wierd duo of beliefs originates in the Nixon era, btw. He tried terribly hard to defeat them, but the facts were too muddy and righteousness too high for fair argument, and that Republican bias among swing voters cost him the majority and the Presidency. The Swift Boat Veterans people may have been lying, but it's a lie that a lot of people from that time cling to (>50%), and it roots in the old colonial Settler Messianism- that white Christian people are always doing the work of God, whatever the details, when dealing with native peoples.

To be blunt, Kerry's perfectly right in deciding to do this, to focus on the handling of the gamut of Middle East problems by the Republican side. He's doing something serious and perhaps politically highly effective about that last irrational belief that gives Republicans their crucial little extra bit of sway and hold on power, even if it looks pretty harmless at the moment- it will take a year or two. His dealing with the things you and the particular subset of Americans on this discussion board insist he should is, on closer inspection, a waste of time or even counterproductive. All the whining you echo is based in selfpity and latent conservatism (i.e. inability to bear any loss of power in return for gain in integrity/principle). The comparison to Yukochenko/Yukovich fails on analogy of the facts- Ukraine is a 60/40 country ethnoculturally, Yukochenko needed to prove nothing to his voters, who voted on ethnicity and are a majority a priori, and partition of Ukraine is the rational and likely outcome in the long run.

The Party has to heal itself. Every election reopens internal rifts, and the most compromised faction inevitably leaves. Personally I think the Dean people refuse to accept the reality that internal consensus on social policy necessarily precedes ability to do anything about economic policies. The 'DLC' is just a functionally obsolete and politically unreliable faction, even if it represents a majority of Democrats in the American South for the time being. The insanity and selfpity and dependence syndrome that precedes a rethinking isn't Kerry's to fix, whatever he might or might not desire. He's wise not to give any immature, leader-desperate, faction an ego boost, making all sink or swim on their own merits.

That seems to me the far more sane interpretation of the present. I hate Arnie the Austriofascist, but his assertion of Democratic 'girly men' is pretty well bourne out recently with all these ridiculous whiney posts about needing to have a leader who kicks and kisses and screws the people posting often enough and in the right order.

[Pushed To The Left]

125. I totally agree

Progressives need to stick together! I think there still might be some bitterness over the 2004 primaries. I remember it got pretty heated here during that time. Some people seem to think that if a Democrat doesn't agree with them on every issue, then that candidate must be another Zell Miller.

[muse]

136. I said the exact same thing in a reply to a thread, ras.

It was a day or two ago. My negative energy is focused on Bush. I was a Kerry supporter and dearly wish he was about to be inaugurated. Period. He's not, so I'm anti-Bush and I'm looking to see who in the Democratic party can lead us forward.

[CWebster]

153. destruction of the Constitution/Liberty/and eternal war

If Kerry had only demonstrated a willingness to lead with a clear principled message of opposition instead of a war hero image in the midst of an unprincipled and illegal invasion of another country.