Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cambell Brown says Reps want Kerry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:59 AM
Original message
Cambell Brown says Reps want Kerry
On Chris Matthews just now she said the republicans are sitting on a massive Kerry file but don't want to release it too soon to cost him the nomination.

Rove wants Kerry. He's drooling for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
carrowsboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. oh puhleez
Such BS!

These "files" they seem to be in possession of is nothing more than a scare tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:20 PM
Original message
This sounds like another "please don't throw me in that briar patch"
tactic. Really, Rove is becoming such a bore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can't buy this.
I don't care what Rove says. I'm confident they do not want to run against Kerry.

But that's just my opinion, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. we already know about Skull and Bones
:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Neither Bush nor Kerry will say anything about S&B
When asked, Kerry's people said "no comment" - when Bush was asked, his people said "no comment".

After all - it's JUST a fraternity right? But such a big deal that they each keep their little "secret frat oath" in the face of public scrutiny?

That's some loyalty to just another frat, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. I just read about
a completely different scenario. From the Clark blog. Have a read about what's going to happen. The future has been predicted. Watch it happen.

THE HIT IS ON - INSIDE THE RIGHT-WING'S STRATEGY
There Is Only One Issue In This Upcoming Election: It Is Not Iraq, It Is Not The Economy, And Unless Certain Candidates Deal With It Immediately They Will Be Done In Short Order

by Samuel A. Stanson
JANUARY 21, 2004 - In this story written on December 8, 2003 (http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i16clarksurge.htm ), we informed you of the right-wing's election strategy. The basic idea is to push Kerry and Edwards early on, then turn on them. The goal is to bury Clark - who they are worried is the best candidate to beat President Bush - and ensure that Dean wins - the person they consider easiest to beat.

Here is an excerpt from the December 5 entry on the right-wing site polipundit:

"The rationale is simple:
1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails.
2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards. It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined below.
3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by neighbouring-son John Edwards.

In addition to reporting this a month and a half ago, we reported last week in this article (http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i18rightwing.htm) that the right-wing was about to launch an all out smear assault against General Clark.

And we have had confirmed by an inside source that these are indeed the marching orders - in fact, you don't have to look far to see this. Just listen to AM radio or watch FOX News and you will see nothing but the same handful of dishonest smears and innuendo about Clark repeated and repeated - every time he comes up, every time, they will be sure to mention the two dictated lies of the moment - and praise for Kerry and Edwards.

We summed things up in this article www.moderateindependent.com/v1i18soumedia.htm last week, telling how the lynchpin to the Bush/Limbaugh hold on power is their complete domination and control of the entire non-Moderate Independent American media.

All good M/I readers already know all this stuff - and in reality, anyone who is not living with their head up Limbaugh's oxycontin bottle is aware of this.

But, for some reason, no one in the Democratic Party gets the extent of it yet. On Thursday night, just days before the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic hopefuls are set to walk back into yet another FOX News-hosted debate.

So let us be clear: there is only one issue that will determine the outcome of the upcoming election. It is not Iraq, it is not the economy. The issue is the right-wing's domination of the media, and if the Democratic Party and candidates do not realize this and make coming up with an aggressive, effective strategy to deal with it proactively a top priority, they have no chance of winning.

Make no mistake, the right-wing's domination of the media message is a virtual science at this point. They used it to get President Bush elected the first time, they used it to get Schwarzenegger elected. As far as two years before the 2000 election, while America was basking in peace and prosperity and almost no one had heard of Governor Bush, the media around the nation was already dubbing Bush "unbeatable." Schwarzenegger was unanimously and constantly referred to as the "frontrunner," despite the fact he was in not in the lead at all but behind by much as fifteen points in the polls and, in fact, never led until the very last week. We document the Schwarzenegger story here www.moderateindependent.com/v1i12puppet.htm .

Right now, Kerry and Edwards think the press is, at last, on their side. How naïve can they be.

Look above - we told you as of December 8 that the media was going to chew them up just so they can spit them out. Kerry and Edwards are not considered threats to win the nomination nor to beat President Bush. Clark is.

The Democrats see President Bush unleash teams to Iowa and New Hampshire right before the primaries and still they don't get it.

The Bush re-election strategy is simple - and nothing like America has ever seen before. They are not concerned so much about how they will portray the President, as all traditional campaigns are. For the Bush/Limbaughians, this election is a practical matter and a ground war.

The media machine they have set in place marches lockstep, taking talking points directly from the RNC. It spans every corner of the nation, covers the airwaves above every wheat and cornfield in America, sits within the newspaper on the doorstep of every suburban household. While the Democrats spend millions to buy 30 seconds of airtime here or there, the Bush teams dispatched to Iowa and New Hampshire simply snapped their fingers and got 80 spots lined up on talk radio stations - each a twenty minute (or longer) unrebutted campaign commercial, which then goes onto 24 hours straight of echoing the same campaign commercial talking points - all free of charge and widely broadcast.

And they know how the game works: they can lie all they want and no one will do anything about it. Gingrich first perfected the routine. They start by telling a lie - like the one we caught Drudge and RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie telling the other day. The media may call them on it - as we did, the Washington Post, and the NY Times did.

But that doesn't stop them. The thing they learned is to tell a lie, tell it big, tell it often. And this works because the Democrats let them get away with it. The media will call them on it once, but then consider their job done. They will not write again and again that, "Despite us pointing out they are lying, the RNC Chair won't stop." They won't do it, and the Bush/Limbaughians know it.

Unless it is the RNC pushing the buttons. When Moveon.org had a couple of videos on their site that compared Bush to Hitler - which isn't necessarily dishonest or inaccurate to begin with - RNC Chair Gillespie had it all over the news. It went on for days, hit the front of all the major news sources. Moveon.org apologized and pulled the videos, and it was done.

However, when just a few days later Gillespie himself was caught red-handed intentionally lying to smear a Democratic presidential hopeful, it got almost no media play, no apology, and right this very second the lies are being repeated and repeated - despite a mountain of clear evidence and a few articles showing them to be lies - repeated all across the country, from talk radio to TV to the print media.

And no one in the Democratic Party makes it an issue. They think they can ignore it, think it won't affect them.

And so again and again the message is being reinforced, subtlety, that Kerry's okay, Edwards is good, but fear Clark, smear Clark.

For now they are bashing Dean as well. But don't let that confuse you. They still are pulling for Dean. The plan is to push Kerry through New Hampshire, then start assailing him as an unelectable Northeast liberal as they move to the South. Then they will briefly continue their push of Edwards, trying to get him to knock off Clark in South Carolina.

If they can get a Kerry win in New Hampshire and an Edwards win in South Carolina, they will feel they have neutralized Clark, at which point they then turn on Edwards as well as Kerry, and start pushing Dean like they had before.

They pushed Dean early on, pushed Dean, and Dean rose. Everyone saw this. They decided they want to push Edwards and Kerry and guess what? Edwards and Kerry are at the top. When they decide to bash them and push Dean again, he'll be back up. Their absolute control of the media is that good... if left unchallenged and not made a central issue.

And so we are now a few days before the New Hampshire primary. Talk radio is spreading the same two-specific smears about Clark and trying to make Democrats nervous that they maybe can't trust him while giving compliments and a free ride to Kerry and Edwards. And Clark's campaign has not made a major issue of it yet.

And on Thursday, the Bush/Limbaughians are in control, as their puppet station, FOX News, hosts a debate. We know what to expect, we have seen it twice already this year. They will be sure to work in the same two dishonest smears that they are echoing on talk radio. They will instigate to try and get Clark angry and infighting, and insult him directly by citing the lying smears they have been echoing for over a week now as "conventional wisdom." And after the debate they will do their "analysis," repeating the same lying talking points and casting as much doubt on Clark as possible, while talking nicely about Kerry and Edwards - more so in praise of Kerry at this point since New Hampshire is what's next.

We know this. This is simple fact.

In the Iowa caucuses, caucus sites were flooded as never before, and the big story was all the new people, many of who were Republicans, who took the cue from talk radio and went heavily for Kerry and Edwards.

People say this election will be close - that is not the case. This election will be a landslide. Which side it will go for will come down to one thing: will the Democrats challenge the Republicans' amoral, dishonest media domination?

If the answer is no, whoever is their candidate will be trounced. If the answer is yes, they will win by a landslide.

One of our readers wrote us yesterday. He heard a talk radio host in LA talking about the Iowa caucuses, and he was heaping praise on Kerry and Edwards. So he called in to voice his support for General Clark. As soon as he mentioned Clark's name, our reader told us, the host went right into the exact lying smear we had debunked just a few days ago.

The M/I reader told us because he had read the articles on our site he was able to simply and easily point out how dishonest the host was being and take him on on a moral basis. "What you are saying is clearly not true," he said he told the host, "you must know that, so you obviously have something against General Clark. Why are you smearing a decorated four-star American General by intentionally spreading the same lies Drudge and the RNC were caught spreading last week? Why would you so dishonestly smear a good American like that?"

This is why M/I exists. The days of the lies holding supreme reign are over - the truth is now here. And we have already developed a small army who is out there fighting back . And, as our reader who made this call told us, it is amazing how easy it is to humiliate, degrade, and point out the amorality of these people when you have the proper information for your rebuttals. (In this case, when our reader cited Richard Perle's clear comments stating he knew Clark was opposed to the war, the radio host was lost . You see, they just take the talking points lies - when you have the whole truth, you have the upper-hand.)

Yes, our readers realize how serious this issue is, and by reading M/I they are taking steps to combat it. They bring this information out into the world and begin to change the national conversation.

However, it is up to the Democratic candidates and party to do the same. The last two FOX News debates were absurd, and only helped President Bush. Thursday night, with so much on the line, General Clark - and the other candidates who are so happy to be getting free dope from the scumlord dealer - better show up with a strategy. And the best strategy is to anticipate the obvious and make it a moral issue.

President Bush has a lot in store for the upcoming election, but it will be like his version of the War on Terror - covert, and on offense. He will not simply present himself and try to win support. There will be interference at every turn, every tactic used to make sure the Democrats don't get heard, complete use of their media machine to personally attack and smear while the President seems to have nothing to do with it.

If the media is not dealt with, every argument on every subject will be twisted and, indeed, become irrelevant, and personal characterizations, like the ones being insinuated now about Clark, are what will determine the election.

This is the strategy. The good news is that, if you realize the predominance of this issue, it is a straightforward one to combat.

So far, by the fact that the Democratic Party scheduled all of these debates to be hosted by the clearly biased right-wing puppet FOX News Channel, it is obvious the party doesn't get it yet. It is sending its troops out into a booby trapped field - for the third time this election cycle.

Thursday the Democratic candidates walk into the Lion's den for a debate that may very possibly determine the outcome of the entire primary season. I hope they have learned from the Roy Horn tragedy and bring more than just a microphone with them.

For General Clark in particular, the hit is on. He has to go in there knowing it is a setup, a planned character assassination attempt.

Of course, as a four-star General, he might be well aware and have strategized as any good planner should. If he is prepared to make fun of the FOX News Channel if any absurd or loaded questions are asked, asserting he is the candidate who won't let FOX News and the right-wing media steer this election, he might just pull another perfect act of jujitsu and leave his would-be assassins the injured party. Brit Hume will be hosting. By simply pointing out at the first moment that he is a clearly biased host, partial-to-Bush and hostily partial-against-Clark, it would put the audience on notice and defang Hume before he has a chance to run the attack we all know he is planning.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. interesting article, mentioning who Rove wants
Assuming that Karl Rove lies at least as much as George Bush, and that he's coached his right wing sycophants in the congress and senate and in that ugly echo chamber they've spent billions to build-- Howard Dean is the man they fear the most, since he's the one they've attacked the most


Carolyn Kay a software developer turned political activist who hosts the website, www.MakeThemAccountable.com She'd said "Believe me, Karl Rove looks at Kerry as beatable. The right-wingers know how to pull a fake. Whoever Rove says he wants Bush to run against is the person he doesn't want Bush to run against. Whoever he says he doesn't want Bush to run against is the person he does want Bush to run against."
http://www.opednews.com/kall_0104_rove_fears_Dean.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kerry Protested IN VietNam Not Just In The USA
I will apologise if this is incorrect.

If I am correct, then Kerry is toast.

You CANNOT denounce the United States CIC or Government on FOREIGN SOIL and remain a viable Presidential Candidate.

Mediawhores have tried to manipulate Clark into doing this when he testified in the Hague. Weedruff was so obvious it was pathetic.

Kerry protesting in US is no problem.

He will be savaged if it is true he went to Viet Nam to do this ala Jane Fonda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. The GOP
STILL foams at the mouth over Jane Fonda. If Kerry DID protest in Nam...you're right, He's toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. It's About 99.5% Certain He Did
and most Americans POST 9/11 WOULD fall for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. Long past time to stop giving a damn what the GOP MIGHT want
Rove wanted Dean to get the nomination. Then he didn't. They're secretly drooling over Clark getting the nod, and they're not. Now they've got the goods on Kerry, and they want him to get the nomination, even though he's ahead of Bush in the mainstream/GOP polling for the first time.

I have news for them and for you: the GOP doesn't get to decide who we nominate, they just get to run against him. And I do believe that I could come up with a file on Bush that's about 6 inches thick and full of incriminating evidence. It's time to quit being afraid of who the Repubicans may or may not want to win the nomination. They are the ones who should be frightened--they have good reason to be. In reality, they'd probably love for Sharpton to get the nomination, but they know that won't happen. Any of the 5 viable candidates could and will put George W Humanrightsabuser in a world of pain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. The problem IS
the GOP OWNS the damn airwaves! They WILL choose our candidate for us. The one they choose will have the least chance of beating the chimp in the GE. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. They have files on ALL the candidates; releasing now would HELP kerry, as
it would backfire on them, and they know that.

Your premise is without factual basis--total spin.

One of Bush's supporters, Don Dybus, a Phoenix businessmen who has raised $50,00 for Bush's re-election, said this recently, "He (John Kerry) would be the most formidable candidate." This, in an article by Ron Hutcheson in my local newspaper, titled, "As Dean tumbles, GOP revises campaign plans."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. That is the Rove tactic in a nutshell.
One of Bush's supporters, Don Dybus, a Phoenix businessmen who has raised $50,00 for Bush's re-election, said this recently, "He (John Kerry) would be the most formidable candidate." This, in an article by Ron Hutcheson in my local newspaper, titled, "As Dean tumbles, GOP revises campaign plans."

Have some upright citizen say exactly what you don't mean in the hopes that other upright Americans will believe it is true.

If this party continues to fall for Repuke double-speak then we are truly sunk. I for one think people will catch on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. Heard Rove has NO FILE on Dean. Didn't think he would need it. to Win
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 12:37 PM by WiseMen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Dean turned out to be the "stop-Dean" candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. It sure seems this way. Right wing pundits were talking nice about Dean
for months last year. It was clear they wanted to face him. But the RNC finally realized that Dean was a lot more of a threat than they thought, so they released their attack dogs on him to take him down before he became too big and beyond their control. Now they want to take out Clark, whom they have feared since last summer. They want a nice conventional campaign against Kerry, the kind of Dem they know how to beat. (I don't agree--I think Edwards would be easiest to go against; people hate lawyers, and his lack of experience will make him an easy mark for the repugs in a post 9/11 America.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. I agree milkyway...watch what they DO.....NOT what they say...
the whole time in office...they have said one thing and done another..why stop now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. Well, if Campbell Brown said it, that should settle it . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Rove & the wingnuts would have a file on Jesus Christ if he were running.
We need to support the best candidate for the job and ignore the pundits. They have been wrong every step of the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. BOO! We have secrets about you dirty nasty secrets BOO!
Funny I have a file on W too, all you have to do is read the paper or pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Of course, the repubs will want to frame the debate around the....
"Massachusetts Liberal" label and the media will no doubt be willing to help them. WeHave to guide the debate back to the issues that are important to the people and nto deal with the labels. We will have to bring their attention to it when they attempt to negate the ideas by labeling. The media is our opponent also. We have to be ready to call them on this tactic everytime it happens and remind their viewers and listeners what the election is really about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. Here is NYT on that GOP Kerry file:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html

Rivals Mine Kerry Senate Years for Material to Slow Him Down
By TODD S. PURDUM


ASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — The moment John Kerry began to seem like the candidate to watch in the Iowa caucuses, the campaigns of his Democratic rivals Howard Dean and Richard A. Gephardt swiftly used a handful of Mr. Kerry's decade-old Senate votes and statements against ethanol and agricultural subsidies to attack him as not supportive of Iowa's essential industry.
Now that his opponents are moving even more aggressively to slow Mr. Kerry's rise, his 19-year voting record as the junior senator from Massachusetts could loom as his greatest political vulnerability, to Democrats and Republicans alike. The sheer length of Mr. Kerry's service means that he has built a paper trail of positions on education, the military, intelligence and other issues — stands that might have looked one way when he took them but that resonate differently now.
For example, at the end of the cold war, Mr. Kerry advocated scaling back the Central Intelligence Agency, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he complained about a lack of intelligence capability. In the 1980's, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts. In the 1990's, he joined with Republican senators to sponsor proposals to end tenure for public school teachers and allow direct grants to religion-based charities, measures that many Democratic groups opposed. In 1997, he voted to require elderly people with higher incomes to pay a larger share of Medicare premiums.
The record is susceptible to two broad strands of attack. Mr. Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of shifting stands on issues, like his qualified praise for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and his vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. They say these are at odds with his claim to be the "real deal" Democratic alternative to Mr. Bush, capable of "standing up for people and taking on powerful interests," as he says in his stump speech.
"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that," said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. "When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the place on this stuff."
Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire on Saturday, Dr. Dean used Senator Kerry's record to make a point about his own foreign policy experience.
"His voting record on Iraq is exactly the opposite of mine," Dr. Dean said, pointing to Mr. Kerry's votes against the Gulf War in 1991 and for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq last fall. "I think mine has been proven to be right twice."
By contrast, the Republicans seek to paint Mr. Kerry as voting in lock step with, or even to the left of, his fellow Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy.
"Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," the Republican national chairman, Ed Gillespie, said in a speech on Friday.
Mr. Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, said the senator was "proud of his independence and unashamed that his resistance to orthodoxy leaves him hard to pigeonhole," adding that he had "fought a lifetime for what's right even when it's neither popular nor predictable." He added, "Ed Gillespie may be the last guy left who doesn't realize it's George Bush who's out of touch with the American people."

<snip>A Kerry campaign aide said that if the campaign was forced to defend itself, it was "armed with a treasure-trove of votes that prove John Kerry's commitment to strong national defense, a stronger intelligence-gathering operation than George Bush has delivered, and to a long record of fighting the deficit, reforming education and restructuring welfare."<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catt04 Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Some of that file is the problem
with Kerry changing his mind after the fact.

And I support Kerry. Hopefully the Dems will come back with all the Bush promised when he was campaigning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. How Horrible. Kerry doesn't do politics-as-usual. He says what he thinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. Wow.. Rover wants everyone.. I have heard that he wants Dean
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 02:09 PM by SoCalDem
and he wants Edwards,..and clark.. but. They are "affffraid" of Floppy Face..:hahahahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
25. They All Have Their Assets And Liabilities
but I think Kerry, Edwards, and Clark would be the strongest challengers....


I hate Rove..... What an effete tub of shit....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC