Why do so many here keep pissing on Kerry?

[DaveSZ]

He has a more liberal lifetime voting record than Ted Kennedy!

We should fight tooth and nail to elect this guy instead of tearing him down!

C'mon Democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

:argh:

[JI7]

1. some are still upset their candidate lost

[DaveSZ]

2. I can understand that.

After careful thought though, and watching Kerry handle Tim Russert, I know that we nominated the right guy!

He'll be an awesome president if we can get him in there!

[rockymountaindem]

4. Good thing my candidate was always Kerry.

I was about to throw in the towel and just switch to Dean for about a week there before Iowa, but then Dean just imploded. Dean's a good man, but I've always been for Kerry.

[JI7]

14. me too, always been for Kerry

and was never going to drop him for another candidate. i would have supported whoever ended up winning the primary of course, but in the primary kerry was my candidate. and now he is THE NATIONAL candidate also and i loveeeeeeeee it.

[Guaranteed]

9. God DAMMIT that's fucking BULLSHIT. nt

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[onehandle]

3. They think Bush is doing a great job.

Believes he deserves a second term.

[rpannier]

5. not totally surprising.

a lot of kerry's support seems to come from people like me -- the I didn't vote for kerry, but i'll vote against bush. i don't feel a lot of passion from this guy and i'm not sure he believes what he says much of the time. i think this turns people off. there are some who are unhappy because their guy didn't win and they're mad. plus, and i think this is the overriding factor, he's one of us. he's part of the democratic party and we're kind of hard on our own. which is not a bad thing. come election day, we'll vote for him because he's the democrat -- we'll (including me) bitch about it, but we'll vote for him -- and when he's a success we'll all claim we were behind him from the beginning -- Kind of like what me and my Jerry Brown-supporting friends did with Bill Clinton.

[nosmokes]

16. i sorta agree with this

kerry was certainly not my first choice, but i'll follow the guy into hell now if it'll get the shrub outta the oval office.

i would dearly love to see some more decisiveness coming from JK though, a little more point than just counterpoint. i'd like to see kerry frame the issues instead of it being solely how screwed up bushco is - that's a given. not that we should relax on that front, but there's a lot of campaign to go, and i think i'd like to see some positive sides of kerry.

[eumesmo]

70. Well put.

It's like 1996. A lot of people had strong feelings for or against Clinton, but were apathetic towards Dole. So even though a lot of people wanted Clinton out, that wasn't enough to make a difference. OTOH when Clinton ran against Bush 41, not only were there people who wanted Bush out, there were a lot of people who liked Clinton. The same thing could be said for Reagan in '80. It wouldn't suprise me if one did research on this to see a pattern where to defeat an incumant you need a combination of anti-incumbant sentiment and an attention-grabbing challenger.

[Nazgul35]

6. *sigh*

Considering that another (right wing site) has claimed that it has plenty of impostors on this board....and the willingness of some here to continue to engage in the round and round nonsense...why the surprise?

:shrug:

It is threads like this that keep the other threads going.....also, any attempt to engage in a discussion about the tactics of the Kerry campaign are treated as high treason....

If you were all smart, when someone posted a thread like that you'd ignore it...and it would drop off the front page in a matter of minutes....so it must be something else...

Perhaps the continued game of one-upsmanship...or I was right you were wrong that so many seem to want to engage in....

I remember when DU use to be a site devoted to informing everyone what was going on around the country so we could fight Bush.....

Not worrying about making stupid ass attacks against the nominee or attempts to silence dissent when warrented......

[sandnsea]

7. Dissent or attacks?

"Not worrying about making stupid ass attacks against the nominee or attempts to silence dissent when warrented..."

That's the problem, very little of what gets posted is warrented dissent.

[Nazgul35]

8. than don't respond to them...

and see how quickly they fall off the page....

[sandnsea]

10. I usually don't

Just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

[Nazgul35]

13. flaw in my argument?

I didn't say that all negative posts were dissent....

You however assume that all such posts were crap...which counts as opinion....yous, and not a flaw...


"I usually don't"

ummm...ok....

And I would point out the following exchange as a text book example of why these types of posts stay around for ever....it is more about being right than having a debate....

Some people feel the need to piss a circle around DU.....far too many it seems...

[sandnsea]

61. "all such posts"

No, I said, "very little of what gets posted is warrented dissent."

Since you chose to infer that as "all such posts are crap", I would guess "it is more about being right than having a debate."

Got a mirror handy?

[eumesmo]

71. This thread

is ironic.

[Dagaz]

11. It's anti war

Kerry has said correctly that Iraq must be wom. This isn't a liberal position but it's just a nasty truth. Combine that with Kerry's position that the Palestinians are terrorists against peace (which is also true) and the problem becomes clearer. There are just some that hold on to some 60s positions that need to face reality.

[Nazgul35]

15. "There are just some that hold on to some 60s positions...

...that need to face reality."

Wow....

Exhibit A of why people post the threads they do....

I know of another group who seek to determine what reality is....we are trying to get their asses out of the White House....

[madfloridian]

17. 60's positions?

Need to face reality? How many more Iraqs will "have to be won?" That is the fear. It is a legitimate fear.

Your quote on the Palestinians is unnecessary.

Insulting those of us who care about our country's role in pre-emptively remapping the middle east is totally not productive.

Kerry needs to take a strong stand on it. Kerry had 60's positions, where did they go? I taught with a dear friend whose fiancee was declared POW in Vietnam. They told her in her classroom. I could tell you many stories of many friends.

Tread easy on the criticism of those of us who do not feel our country has a right to remake the world.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

26. Excuse me, did you just say you do not support those wanting "peace"?

You are saying Kerry does not either. Are you sure that is his position?

[Classical_Liberal]

30. Do you think that is bigoted to say all Palestinians are scum?

?

[Guaranteed]

20. LOL YOU need to face reality...

There's no such thing as "winning" in Iraq.

Could you explain to me what you're talking about- in very specific terms, now?

I'm not anti-war, and I was born in 1979. But this is a joke. There's nothing to be won...we don't have a GOAL. Not "plan"...GOAL. We don't know what we're trying to do, as all of the options open to us are unacceptable.

So, let's leave.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. So all Palestinians are terrorist huh?

Terrorist who deserve their land stolen.

Yeah I'm just a sappy hippy because I don't approve.

I have no idea what a wom is, or how it applies to Iraq.

[zoeyfong]

46. 'fraid not; I'm pro-Israel and i will *never* vote for Kerry

because of his Iraq war support.

[JVS]

56. I'll have to inform my Palestinian friends that they are terrorists

Thanks for the clarification.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[leftistagitator]

12. Many have a legitimate disagreement with him on a very important issue

Many here see this war devolving into an endless civil war, where in thousands of people die and democracy never comes to Iraq. Some believe that Kerry knows all of this, but is secretly in on the PNAC Skull and Bones conspiracy. So they see him as no different from *. Others simply think he is dangerously misguided, and yet another group feels he lacks the political courage to take the stands he knows he should.

We also know that there are disruptors here who's life work to create divisions between liberals. They regularly gloat on how they've "stirred the pot" by posting hateful messages and watching with glee as we attack each other. We know they have been around for a long time, some of them have 1000+ posts.

If we only knew which group was which this would all be a lot easier.

[rasputin1952]

18. There are a few reasons...

Their candidate lost.

There were too many candidates to start off with.

All of the candidates had good and poor ideas, (nobody wanted to look at the poor ones).

A lot of people on DU think that if Kerry does not follow their line of reasoning, he is just plain wrong. (This happens to a lot of candidates, but when you add the thoughts above to the equation, it manifests the problem to a greater extent).

What it comes down to, is that NO candidate is the perfect candidate. No one who runs for office can possibly be everything for everybody. One of the maturing processes in politics, is realizing that there are good positions that pols take, even if you do not agree with every position a pol takes, the one you are going to vote for, has the best chance to defeat the one you want out.

Since the object is to get bush out before he destroys the entire country, there is only one real choice at this point, Kerry.

Nader is a wasted vote. I can relate to someone saying they are making a "protest" vote, but the reality of that is simply absurd. You can stick to your principles just as easily by not voting for anyone for president, and still vote for your Rep, Sen, Gov and everything else on the ballot. Staying home is just plain foolish IMHO...if you don';t vote for a pres, there are still many things to vote for, there is no excuse for staying home or not sending in an absentee ballot; NONE, (just so people who read this know how serious I am about this)...:)

Kerry is not the most inspiring public speaker I can think of...but bush is so far down the scale, I'm surprised he hasn't fallen off!

Kerry has some good ideas, and a few, what I consider, poor ones. Will that stop me from voting for him? Of course not! I didn't agree with everything any president has done, but it won't stop me from admiring those that I do. LBJ lied to get us further into Vietnam...that was not a good idea. But he did tremendous things for Civil Rights, the poor, and the infrastructure.

Nixon furthered Civil Rights legislation, and actually did a few decent things for the country as a whole; but he was a paranoid freak and Watergate brought him down.

Reagan has nothing but bad marks IMHO, except for the fact he survived an assassination attempt, (had to find something positive...:) ).

Kerry cannot be the knight in shining armor that takes on all dragons and evil-doers. He can only be the best hope we have to get bush out of our WH. I don't think he is a bad man. But I KNOW bush is a bad man, in fact, I think bush is evil incarnate.

Kerry is what we have, and I will give him my vote. I will be in the streets talking up the good points he has, and berating bush at every opportunity...that is how important I see this election as. It is the most important election of my lifetime, and I cannot allow bush to retain the reigns of power. I will fight him with all I have to get him out of office legally and morally.

I am hoping that in the coming months, people will rally behind Kerry...we have no other option.

O8)

[Classical_Liberal]

32. I don't expect perfection, and this is very wrong just like the WMD

It will hurt us in the future if he maintains that position.

[kodi]

19. tell me again how smart a guy is who bush fooled about iraq.

smarter than 90% of duers who knew bush was lying? does that make the average duer intellectually superior to kerry?

i think it does.

you want an honest opinion? kerry sure is lazy. surely, not as lazy as bush, but still lazy.

if kerry is spouting on about how this is an election of historic proportions, where is the fire in the belly from him? i sure don't see it in him and i never did.

[John_H]

22. Uh...cause they love Chimp?

[DaveSZ]

23. .

I've also come to the conclusion that there are multitudes of Bush trolls on this board as well.

We'd all be well served to ignore their posts from now on.

[AntiCoup2K4]

93. Just a reminder....

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Guaranteed]

25. And they hate freedom!

:puke:

[Dr Fate]

24. I agree-

I've never seen anything like it. People here campaigning against the Democrats...

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Kerry has been pissing on alot of people who worked very

hard. protested, marched, and organized against this stupid fricking clash of civilization the Bush admininstration has created.

It started with IWR.

Then came the smears against Chavez. The rebuff of Zapatero. Something Shrub would do. Both had expressed support for him too.

Then came news that PNAC Will Marshall is his speech writer.

Then he moved way to the right of Clinton and Carter on Israel Palestine, and recognized the settlements on the West Bank. Settlements so large, that the two state solution is now impossible.

WE have been getting pissed on for several months now, and no end is in sight.

[DaveSZ]

29. I agree with you there Classical Liberal.

But, this is how George Bush came so close to winning in 2000; he gave us that "compassionate conservatism" cetrist BS.

If he had campaigned as someone who would rape the environment, wage imperialist wars, and govern like Pat Robertson's hand puppet, then he would have lost.

Let's hope that Massachusetts liberal Kerry will reemerge after he's elected. What choice do we have really other than to support him if we care for America's future? Even if the stakes were not this high, I'd still be willing to give the guy a chance based on his voting record.

[Guaranteed]

33. That was a totally different time in our history.

Before 9/11 the idea was to look as centrist as possible, to make people feel comfortable...people DIDN'T want change...it was a very real rush to the middle.

Post 9/11, people are looking for leadership. People have to make arguments, and pull the country in one direction or another, because this time around people DO want change. In this election, if you try to look like your opponent, you LOSE. If you move to the middle, you LOSE. This is a tug-of-war, but Kerry isn't playing it that way. And if he doesn't wake up to that real quick, he will lose.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. I am not suggesting Nader voting(note to European readers)

I am saying be prepared for Kerry to be a dissappointment, and start developing strategies to counter his right wing lurch. I hope the European allies see Kerry is emphasizing style(tact) and no substance. Kerry is banking on his good relations with them. They are in a position to put pressure on him to be responsible with Sharon.

Zapataro actually did the right thing. Unfortunately he will have to keep pressuring even after JFK II is elected if he is sincere in what he has been saying.

[zoeyfong]

47. Supporting a bogus war is a crime too big to let slide.

I can and have let a lot of stuff slide before and voted for people who were not perfect, but when a candidate has been foolishly, criminally involved in getting america into the most disasterous war since vietnam, that is where i draw the line. If not there, then where, I ask you.

[JVS]

57. I thought the only lines were the "too leftist" and "too angry" lines

Those seem to be regarded as legitimate here

[Guaranteed]

31. Yeah, that's all pretty disgusting.

The stuff's starting to pile up way past the IWR.

[no name no slogan]

35. I'm truly concerned about this too

Kerry seems to be trying to "out-hawk" the hawks on so many issues: I/P, "winning" the Iraq war, the aspersions he's cast at Chavez and Zapatero.....is he trying to show he's as fulla sh!t as BushCo?

On foreign policy, there's little difference between Kerry and Bush on some fundamental issues. They both still believe in American Imperialism, whether through PNAC or the "Progressive Internationalism" of the PPI. I'm really concerned that the catastrophes created by BushCo internationally can't be (or won't be) fixed by a Kerry administration.

I'll still vote for him, but I am truly concerned about his foreign policy plans. Sure there may be some cosmetic changes to it, but I don't see him making an about face and abandoning American Imperialism.

[saracat]

83. To the right of Clinton?

Clinton has endorsed the Bush position on Isreal and thinks it is appropriate.

[Bill Todd]

36. People here piss on Kerry

because there are a lot of legitimate reasons to, and the utter disgust that Bush inspires really doesn't somehow magically serve to erase them (though for most here it may trump them in terms of deciding how to vote).

People here keep pissing on Kerry at least in large part because people like you keep asking questions like this one thereby eliciting a detailed response (unfortunately, I really don't have time to provide one right now, so others will have to piss for me this time).

- bill

[WilliamPitt]

37. Dean Dean Dean Dean

[VelmaD]

40. *BadgerBadger...

BadgerBadger*

Sorry...had to be done. :)

[Forkboy]

44. Stupidstupidstupidstupid

[CityDem]

38. Which John Kerry are we talking about

The Senator who voted for the IWR or the one who opposes the war or the one who plans to keep US troops in Iraq?

[AntiCoup2K4]

63. Or is it...

..the Kerry who recites PNAC written speeches proclaiming his support for Sharon the war criminal butcher?

[corporatewhore]

39. he is pissing on my friend/mentor

she is a palestinian from jersualem and cant return to her own home

[corporatewhore]

41. funny that a liberal is supporting a racist apartheid state

i think he aint a liberal anymore
http://www.spub.ksu.edu/stories/092302/opi_isreal.shtm

[ArkDem]

49. Aren't Arabs and Jews both Semitic?

.

[Larkspur]

76. Yes they are

but the Likuddites here will vehemently deny it.

[sampsonblk]

42. We are not Freepers

If Kerry wants our votes, he is going to have to represent our views. Otherwise he is toast.

Liberal, is he? I have never heard HIM say that.

[Guaranteed]

43. Don't even respond to that bullshit.

Those folks saying those things are either just ignorant or making very "liberal" (haha!) use of their mental white-out.

[Piperay]

48. Some that do that

are NOT Democrat supporters, they have an agenda and a plan check out no. 4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x16577

[yelladawg]

50. Most here are Clarkies

Most at DU are Clarkies and didn't understand why he lost.

[Orangeone]

51. I am worried

That he (Kerry) will be another LBJ. LBJ was stuck in Vietnam because he was always afraid of appearing "soft" on Communism. Now we have Kerry, who is afraid of appearing soft on Terrorism. He doesn't look like he can stand up to the Republicans.

I'll vote for Kerry, I don't have a choice. My only hope is that perhaps he will be more receptive to protests than Bush is.

[Sparkly]

52. I agree with you

Kerry is about as liberal as it gets before it reaches "unelectable." We've got to accept that reality. He's fighting the Bush charge that he's a way-out wacko crazy leftist Massachussetts Liberal, and we should be fighting back by defending "liberalism" rather than infighting about whether he's liberal *enough* for US.

Nobody can be all things to all people. Only a slice of Democrats will agree with any candidate on EVERYthing. It's kind of childish to want him to tailor his ever stance to match our own individual positions.

This is a chance to oust an extreme rightwing conservative theocratic administration by electing a Democrat most of the country DOES see as liberal. That alone would be a great victory for the left, no matter where on the left any one of us may find ourselves.

[Timefortruth]

53. Speaking for myself, I want him to win

and I sincerely believe that some tweaking is in order. That isn't pissing on him to point out areas where he could improve.

I don't get why even constructive criticism is absolutely off limits. People are waaaay too touchy on this issue. We aren't canonizing him, we are electing him. Our goals are the same.

[GalleryGod]

54. Lotsa A**holes Reside Here

:smoke:

[MadHound]

55. Gee, maybe it is because

He has:

Voted for the IWR, in the face of his constituents wishes, and common sense

Voted for that assault on our civil liberties known as the Patriot Act.

Voted for that assault on public education known as No Child Left Behind.

Has stated that he will push for a corporate tax cut in the vague and stupid hope that somehow there will be a trickle down effect that will create more jobs.

Has stated that he is in favor of keeping the troops involved in that quagmire known as Iraq, and in fact has stated that he wants to up the ante by another 40,000 troops.

Has stated that he supports Israel's positions on slow motion genocide vis a vis the Palestinians.

Has stated that he will continue to support NAFTA.

Has shown himself to be simply another corporate whore.

It is a sad day in this country when one is forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of for a candidate who will do this country good. Some radical changes need to take place in order to take corporate corruption out of our government. That is why I will not be voting for a corporate whore, instead giving my vote to the Green party which accepts NO corporate money, and why I will also be pushing for and supporting publicly financed election campaigns, both in my state, and nationwide.

[JVS]

58. Could it be?

[Guaranteed]

66. Hey, who cares what he votes for? He has a (D)! nt

[tom_paine]

59. I wonder if it's really DUers doing most of the pissing

Just some idle speculation...

[AmyStrange]

60. Is it because folks are upset their candidate lost...

or is it a combination of that and idiots who hated the candidates who lost and take perverse pleasure in following DUers around who still start threads about their candidates and pissing all over their threads with stupid statements like, "your candidate lost. Get over it," and other stupid idiocy like that.

There are three types of people here in GD Campaign 2004. 1) Those who honestly believe Kerry is the savior of the Dem party and are out there everyday campaigning for Kerry enthusisatically and can do it honestly; 2) those who don't care for Kerry but will vote for him because they hate Bush with a fervor that knows no bounds, but can't honestly campaign for Kerry because they don't know how to honestly respond to voters who question Kerry's votes and policies and history; and 3) those who love pissing on people and being mean and don't really care who wins in November.

You can find those folks all over the DU and are usually the first to post in these types of threads making stupid post that just enrage people and get an arguement going that's only purpose is to piss on any candidate but Kerry, because they can get away with it here. They might even be more anti-Kerry than those who are legitimately questioning Kerry's thought processes.

If Kerry loses, it'll be because of these stupid idiots who enjoy pissing on people and not the "supposed" anti-Kerry posters, because most of them are merely trying to find a way to embrace Kerry legitimately and honestly through discussion, but rather than help these folks find a legitimate reason to embrace Kerry, they just laugh maniacally and keep pissing.

That's what really fuels the "supposed" pissing on Kerry threads more than anything else. Some here have said that if you just left those threads alone they would drop like a rock and THAT is the truth, except those who like pissing on other people won't let that happen. Most of the ones who were legitimate anti-Kerry folks have been tombstoned. Most of the only ones that are left are the "pretend" Kerry supporters who have figured out that they can piss and be mean and get away it by "pretending" to be a Kerry supporter.

((((HUGz)))) to all those who are "real" Kerry supporters and understand what I mean,



sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror: http://www.seattleactivist.org


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[Nicholas_J]

62. Because they are still grumpy

That the candidate that they supported didnt win, and cling ti the magical thinking that in spite of the fact that the public didnt like their candidate much before, and that Kerry;s campaign was able to shred all opposition in a matter of weeks, somehow if their candidate were to be the nominee, suddenly they would wave their wands and all of the perople who absoltely didnt like those cnadidates would sudfdenly come rallying. Eve though polls showed that if Dean were the nominee, 20 percent of the registered democrats would prefer to vote for Bush if Dean were the Democratic nominee, and tha Deans highest polling against Bush was 38 percebt, and that the other cnadidates didnt fare much better than that most of the timeexcept for Clarke in one poll in which he came withing striking range. If Kerry loses, everyone will hear that the other candidates would have won, which simple facts do not support.

Thats why. AND we can expect the last weeks of this election to resemble the last weeks before Iowa. Kerry will run aganst Bush at than time, the way he ran against Dean. ANd it will be more likely that Kerry will have a better chance to do to handle BUsh the way he handled Dean, just as it would have been likely that BUsh would have handled Dean the way Kerry handled him, to the same end. A dismal los for Democrats and a massive win for Bush, finally legitimizing his illegitimate regime. At least a Kerry loss will be a veryclose loss, as close or Closer than the last election, And that will speak far more than a massive loss by another candidate.

[AmyStrange]

64. Polls are a waste of time...

and any one who uses them to argue anything one way or the other are wasting their time also.

You should know that better than anyone N_J that polls are a load of crap, look at what alot of the polls were saying about Dean in December, and now you are making an arguement using polls to justify your position that election will be close between Kerry and Bush? We'll talk the day after the election to see how good those polls you swear by today really were.

Unfortunately for your arguements, the only polls you don't question are the ones in your favor. You're biased and this colors your arguements and judgements.

And just remember, a close or massive loss is still a loss. Just ask Al Gore,

d

[Nicholas_J]

65. Sorry

I remember arguning with a lot of Dean supporters for the entire year prior to New Hampshire (before Iowa was moved up to be first) that Dean was going to definitely win. I made a lot of bets with a lot of non Kerry supporters for a crow eating event after the results, and not one of the Dean supporters showed up.

Polls mean plenty, not as individual elements but in agregate they indicate a great deal about public opinion. Dozens of pollsters polling dozens of different people, in dozens of diffent places, at dozens of different time indicate a great deal. Dean simply proved to be incapable of running a campaign against a candidate with experience and ability. end of story.

Overall the polls indicate that Bush is in bad shape for an incumbent.

Overall the results of the Democratic nomination process indicate that Dean was out of his league and in over his head.

He has virtually disappeared. A footnote to a footnote of the 2004 campaign.

[madfloridian]

67. Who has virtually disappeared?

Mr. J, that is wishful thinking. He is getting standing ovations wherever he speaks, and the organization is growing. New staff is being added, and 400 candidates are being supported.

Our meet-ups are active, and now over 166,000 again. So who has disappeared?

I will imagine some will wish he had after November. A lot of the DFA work will begin in earnest then.

Many donations are still pouring in, and the change we are going to make is just beginning. I love it when folks make fun of Dean. It still is inspiring.

[AmyStrange]

69. I accept your apology...

and I do remember those arguements and if you remember correctly, I never bet you one way or the other, because I don't bet about anything (because I have a gambling problem), and because I think polls are a waste of time.

Dean was and still isn't in over his head anymore than Kerry will be in over his head in November. You can argue all you want (especially if you use polls to bolster your arguement), but the bottom line will be what ACTUALLY happens in November.

I hope Kerry wins, and I hope you are right, but I'm not too enthused about his chances, and your logic and arguements are not helping - especially considering your past (and present) use of polls as an arguementive tool,

d

[Nicholas_J]

72. In virtually all of the elections of the last 60 years

The polls have been fairly accurate. In fact in 2000 they were accurate to the degree of who was voting for who. Gore won by pretty much the number of votes that the polls said he would.

Another factor is that in the last weeks of the election, the late voters come out, and by and large, these are more often democratic voters than republican, and on to of this in every elelction over the last quater of a century, the last swing voters to come in and start paying attention overwhelmingly cast their votes against the incumbent. Given the closeness of Kerry in the polls to Bush, the current events run extremely against Bush and largely in favor of Kerry.

Now if we had someone like Dean running against Bush, a candidate who all polls indicated was running 10 -15 points behing Bush, nont of this would matter whatsover.

It still stands. Dean is virtually a non entity in the news. His organization has much the standing of the ABBA fan club. It exists. Everyone who is part of it is aware of what is going on,and dancing to the music, but the rest of the world just doesnt care or notice.

[madfloridian]

74. Disagree on polls. I think they coordinate too closely with the media.

Just as the exit polling service does. Like the questions they asked in the NH exit polling.

You must feel a need to say these things about Dean and to his supporters. It does not bother me, but it makes me wonder why it is necessary.

[Nicholas_J]

79. Primarily because

Of the largely abusive behavior I have experienced at the hands of a large number of Dean supporters. Anything from being called a "turd floating in a punch bowl" as a relatively innocuous response to printing of articles they didnt like about Dean, to considerably worse. I don not think the odd "I told you so" is too much out of line as a consequence.

Now that facts are facts, the original argument made by the original poster still stands. I beleive my explanation is close to an accurate one. Facts are facts. Kerry beat Dean, as soon as he put any effort into it. He has simply proven a better campaigner than Dean on the national stage, in fact of all the democrats, he has proven himself the best. The polls do not necessarily co-ordinate too closely with the media, some, taken by the media do, others do not. Zogby himself has stated that individual polls do little but indicate trends, and that all polls must be looked at to get a real idea of what is actually and most likely occuring. While Dean was running against pretty much no one, and in the media eye, the polls ran in his favor. Its like they say in Hollywood, if they spell the name right, its a good review.

If polls were useless, no one would waste the vast sums of money required to have them done. In fact, if they were useless, none of the corporations who perform them would be multi million, in fact multi-billion dollar corporations. Polls sell, because to some degree, polls are correct. Most accurate when a number of polls are taken as an aggregate.

[AmyStrange]

81. Polls are cheaper than good reporting...

which is why "they" are willing to spend loads of money on them rather than spend two or three times as much money on good reporting and a lot less hard work. And yes they are closely co-ordinated with the media. Notice how the media picks which poll to report. Each different media outlet picks to go with one or two polls and ignores so many of the other ones - including you - especially if they dispute what you say.

And also notice how you can explain away the Dean polls, but argue relentlessly (and use the same reverse logic that many Dean folks used) when someone uses almost the same logic to explain away the polls that you now use to say the election is close.

It's also interesting that now that the shoe is on the other foot and bush and co are pissing on Kerry, so many people here are complaining about people pissing on their guy. And what's even funnier is that you don't see the irony N_J.

And in case you can't figure it out, the irony is that you and so many other folks here sound so much like the Dean folks who complained about what you did and the tactics you and folks like you used to attack Dean, which is almost the exact same thing Bush and co are doing to Kerry now.

Kerry is now spending more time defending himself from Bush (and also agreeing with more things) then he is defining himself as different than Bush.

And that's the funniest and most ironic thing of all,

d

[MoonRiver]

68. I think Skinner should start a new board on DU for Kerry supporters ONLY

Like the ones he had during the primaries. At least we could go there and feel good, not attacked and oppressed.

[Forkboy]

77. jeez,buck up little trooper

Besides,this is almost KU as it is.

[ulysses]

78. "At least we could go there and feel good"

!

You got into politics so you could feel good???

[sangh0]

87. You've just noticed this?

I could point out dozens of posts where someone says they won't vote for someone who doesn't make them feel good. I never saw you complain about it.

Now that a Kerry supporter has said, you suddenly notice.

[ulysses]

89. I thought complaining about *them* was *your* job!

Actually, sangh*, I haven't pointed it out to anyone else before because I'm a super-secret leftist freeper and I'm out to destroy everything I stand for. :D

[sangh0]

90. How hypocritical

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x504844#505625

In one post, uly criticizes someone for voting based on how they feel, while in another, he defends someone for voting based on how they feel

[ulysses]

95. see my reply in that thread.

[MoonRiver]

96. I think it depends on what they're feeling.

If they love Kerry, bad, bad.
If they hate Kerry, good, good.

[Doomsayer13]

73. welcome to the left-wing firing squad

pick up your rifle at the door. Stand along that curvy line there.

[Larkspur]

75. Because he voted for IWR to make up for his 1991 vote against that war

Kerry is a political opportunist and he's great at missing votes that are too controversial for his career, like the Medicare vote last year and Biden-Lugar amendment on IWR, which would have put a strong leasch on Bush's war ambitions. Doesn't matter if they are important to average Americans. Kerry's career is the most important thing in his mind.

[blm]

80. HAHAH....Biden-Lugar wasn't voted on.

And there was NO significant difference in Biden-Lugar and IWR that would have put a leash on war. In fact, B-L also allowed for Bush to have final decision on war, even pre-emptive war.

Buy em for what they KNOW and sell em for what they think they know. Profit margin: HUGE.

Kerry was on record FILIBUSTERING the Medicare bill. When the vote was there for it, he went back to his most important task at hand....campaigning to defeat Bush.

[Bill Todd]

82. Funny - I refuted this same assertion by you just over 24 hours ago

Perhaps you missed it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x502708#504576 , response 41.

It is true that Biden/Lugar was not voted on - because the Democrats were 2 votes short of what they needed to get it voted on. Kerry and Edwards could have been those two votes, but chose not to be.

- bill

edit: Just to eliminate the element of doubt that the earlier response left, I've dug up a direct reference to the Biden/Lugar wording which makes its differences even more evident. In the interest of clarity, I'll just present the entire revised discussion here:

The Iraq War Resolution Which Passed vs. The Biden/Lugar Variant

Until shortly before the Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Kerry opposed it, favoring the Biden/Lugar variant (as did Dean). However, when push came to shove, he supported it (and of course voted for it). Without wishing to go down too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden/Lugar variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems appropriate (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31884-2002Oct2¬Found=true for additional comments).


Biden/Lugar

"(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)." ( http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm )

Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was ever obtained, Biden/Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to provide Congress with his determination "that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary" - a very specific assertion of need (clarified in the preceding section as "the exercise of individual or collective self-defense") for which he could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached.


The Iraq War Resolution

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (The complete text appears at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&en=fbc23828cadaaffb&ei=5070 ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)

This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept - or to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountability comfortably nebulous. Furthermore, it conveniently ignores the fact that absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time - see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the end).

Bush himself rejected the Biden/Lugar variant because he claimed it would 'tie his hands' ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ) - and indeed at least to some degree it would have. The ACLU held that view as well ( http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ). In any event, those who assert that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar was equivalent to Kerry's support for the IWR are simply wrong: Kerry's vote for the IWR supported the war in a way that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar would not have, and Kerry voiced no other real opposition at that time while Howard was increasingly critical.

- bill

[Larkspur]

85. Thanks for the full info.

.

[Larkspur]

84. Kerry is also on record for missing 36 of the 38 votes on the Medicare

bill.

During one of the Prez debates he said that he'd leave the campaign trail to vote AGAINST this Medicare bill. Kerry did leave the campaign trail to go back to the senate, but he missed 36 of the 38 votes on amendments to that bill and when the day of reckoning arrived to vote on the final version of that bill, Kerry was AWOL.

Kerry gets the Political Coward award for that dismal performance.

[zulchzulu]

92. Give rat-faced Ed Gillespie a call

Your lies on Kerry's record are pretty good for a Freeper wannabe. Maybe the RNC has a Burmese t-shirt they can mail you.

Lie 1:
Kerry didn't vote for Medicare bill. He led the filabuster.

Lie 2:
Biden-Lugar amendment was never voted on. On the issue about Kerry, maybe you can answer the two-letter word about who Kerry wanted to keep in Iraq to continue inspections. Additional credits go for the three-letter word that Bush lied about to Kerry and the World to attack Iraq based on lies.

I'm sure you haven't done your homework on Kerry's record through the years. It's time.

[Sorry.]

86. because ...

he's a politician. Er go, incapable of changing anything.

[Zorra]

94. So.....you have someone in mind that is not a politician that actually

has a real chance of defeating Bu$h in November?

[zulchzulu]

91. Bad weed

I'm convinced it's bad weed or maybe some blowback from doing too much Ecstacy in high school.

Maybe they have car problems. Who knows. Who cares.

[cyclezealot]

97. If he were like Kennedy he would vote like Kennedy.

We Democrats need tread carefully to not harm Kerry, but to so many critical issues he is dismal...I need not mention the votes that are unlike Kennedy's..Others have posted these treasonous votes.
Like on reply said..We need support him just because he has a d behind his name...He has too many un d like votes.
Latest example where he riles me...Reports say Kerry does not want to challenge Bush's new Ambassador to Iraq. (Like its not a colony already.!) I refer to John Negroponte..Former Honduran Ambassador accused and convicted to covering up human rights attrocites, Iran Contra connections, and channeling money to illegal sources..he got off due to a technicality.
Kerry does not want to fight Negroponte. Does not speak well of fighting terrorism...Or some such garbage. Negorponte is a terrorist.
Why is Kerry so cowardly. So far all he merits is my vote. Nothing more.