Kerry is ON FIRE: MSNBC: "Bush Intentionally Exagerrated"

[liberalpragmatist]

This man is on fire. So how come half of DU seems to hate him and call him Bush-lite or say he's not fighting back? First there was him accusing Bush of not fulfilling his national guard service, and now there's this gem:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4846266/

“We know that the president and the White House exaggerated material that they were given purposefully, even though they were told otherwise,” Kerry said in an interview on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball.”

“We know they gave misinformation, and yet the president says he’s never made a mistake,” he said, referring to Bush’s statement during a news conference this month that he could not remember a major misstep he had made during his administration.

He accused Bush and his advisers of having gone to war in Iraq simply “because they could.”

“I think it comes down to this larger ideological, neocon concept of fundamental change in the region,” he said. But “they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.”

“I think the president has made some colossal mistakes," Kerry said, “not the least of which is taking our nation to war in a way that was rushed, that pushed our allies away from us, that is costing the American people billions of dollars more than it ought, that is putting our young soldiers at greater risk they they ought to be, without a plan to win the peace. And he broke his promise to go to war as a last resort.”

[Lindacooks]

1. You go, Senator Kerry!!!

We're all behind you.

And you're right, I don't understand people here bashing Kerry. He is the nominee, elected democratically (unlike Bush*), and we have to stand behind him or democracy will vanish.

[frank frankly]

2. outstanding!!! thanks for the link

JK in 2004!

[Catch22Dem]

3. Hey

You ain't gonna hear me complainin' about Kerry. No way, no how.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. I'm behind JK. He needs to beat the drums against * more often!

:kick:

[Melodybe]

5. Wow, I wish that that could be replayed over and over for the sheeple to

bang some truth inton their heads.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Because it is the first sign of life I have seen

. Keep it up!

[trumad]

39. Well you haven't been paying attention

because you've been way to busy scanning positive Kerry threads so you come come in and shit on them.. Everybody on this fucking forum know's your postition regarding Kerry so give it a fucking break.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. Bullshit

It is because I would like Kerry to go on the offensive against Bush. BTW, it looks like fucked up on hardball too. He said "We may find WMD at any moment." Yeah he is really attacking Bush hard.

[trumad]

91. There you go again

Can't help yourself can you? He said that comment with the remote possibility that it may happen.... Hell 1/2 the DU'ers feel the same way... Anythings possible with the Bush gang.....

[Democat]

7. Dick Cheney will regret that he pissed Kerry off

Little Dick is getting his ass kicked!

[Demobrat]

8. Why doesn't he just come right out

and say Bush lied? He lied. He didn't exagerrate. He didn't give misinformation. He lied. Flat out and knowingly lied to the American people. At this point I don't think I could vote for Kerry with a clothespin on my nose, but he's got my vote the day he comes right out and says it. Bush lied.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. This would be even better

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Because it won't win votes at this point.

It's all about convincing the undecideds and as someone who says:

I don't think I could vote for Kerry with a clothespin on my nose

you are far from undecided.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Making undecides think Bush is a liar is a good thing

! You also clipped the "at this point!" part which pretty much proves this voter is undecided. I presonally am absolutely conviced that people who are offended that someone calls Bush a liar are people who will vote Bush and much less undecided than the poster you are talking to.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Perhaps you believe you have better political instincts than Kerry.

I don't.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. When he goes down in the polls will listen?

I don't want to see this happen but it already is. I don't think Kerry has political instincts. He is relying on losers for advisors though.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. You mean like last summer?

Let me guess, 1 year ago, 6 months ago, you thought Kerry had no chance to win the nomination.


Kerry hasn't lost an election in 30 years. Your opinion of his political instincts is valueless.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. I have no respect for yours either.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

The difference is

I was right about whether or not Kerry would become the nominee - were you?

[sangh0]

58. Right, some have a record of being right, and winning

while others have a record of being wrong and losing.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. right and winning are not the same

If they were Bush is right. Furthermore, the people who brought us the Kerry campaign are the losers who gave us 2002. Furthermore, I made no predictions about who would win the nomination.

[sangh0]

83. Umm, that's why I listed both of them

and it's why I'll never say that Kerry has a wife named Theresa and a spouse named Theresa

Furthermore, I made no predictions about who would win the nomination.

Of course. You predicted that Kerry would WIN by getting his own numbers to fall.

)I love how "I made no predictions" becomes "I made no predictions about who would win the nomination"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. Another false comment, apparently based on your imagination.

"the people who brought us the Kerry campaign are the losers who gave us 2002"


:wtf:


Do you have to put a lot of effort into making this stuff up, or does it just flow naturally?

[Classical_Liberal]

77. I made no prediction on matter.

.

[sangh0]

78. Nope, not a prediction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x511427#511490

[Demobrat]

16. And beating around the bush will?

Saying it but not saying it, implying but not sticking your neck out, that will win votes? I give up. It's over.

[Carni]

23. Because if bush plants WMD

And he doesn't get caught at it... then Kerry has egg on his face.

IMO the way Kerry is stating things is the only way he can go currently!

[ACK]

26. Bingo

Half the people here think that shrub will plant WMDs and the other half want the president to be Kerry to come right out and declare they never existed?

WTF?

Do you really want to walk into that trap?

+

[Classical_Liberal]

43. That is real paranoia at this point. Bush doesn't control

the international media like he does here. The real reason he isn't going on the offensive over lies is because most of his ppi advisors supported the war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Why should we place any value on your uninformed opinion?

Your assertion that you know 'the real reason' that Kerry isn't campaigning the way you think he should campaign is nonsense.


You don't know the 'real reason' anyone does anything. Other than yourself. I certainly don't pretend to know the 'real reason' you are spending your time attacking Kerry instead of Bush, for example.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Will Marshall is PNAC.

. He is also his speech writer.

[sangh0]

80. your uninformed opinions aren't going to make us listen to

your uninformed opinions

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. Who gives a fuck?

First of all you've misrepresented and mischaracterized the facts.


Second -- I don't give a flying fuck whether someone gives Kerry advice that I disagree with. What is important to me is what Kerry's actual positions are, and defeating George Bush.

[Gloria]

9. I suggested that he "Start Prosecuting, Stop Pontificating" in the

article I just submitted to Buzzflash.

LOL, maybe we have telepathy.....

We'll see if he keeps up "the fire" which I implored him to do in the piece.....

[arcane1]

12. NOW we're talking!!!!

:toast:


Kerry is almost starting to sound like Kucinich :D

[rockymountaindem]

14. Hot diggity damn!!!

Way to stick it to 'em Mr. Kerry!

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. I wish he would call them

all CHICKENHAWKS! He needs to call the assholes what they are! :grr:

[Gloria]

17. Gee,, I just saw a Bush ad! The one with "Kerry voted against

body armor for our troops...." Who tipped them off to Kerry's appearance??? Midway through the interview!!!!

[lastknowngood]

18. How about it's the first time he ever said anything that really

challenges the shrub and his evil minions. I didn't here the discussion so I'll not judge it. The reason he has been getting hammered here is because he's be a wuss so far. If he actually starts to fight then he might get some respect.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. You must have been on some other planet for the last year

You seem to have missed the Democratic primaries and month since.

Welcome back to Earth!!

[ACK]

27. Like calling for regime change at home

During the first few weeks of the Iraq war?

Short memory span.

Geez.

Like saying to Rolling Stone that he might have voted to give the President the power but he "did not know he would f*ck it up this bad."

Like that?

The press does not put it into every other line of the news the way they filter in the Repuke message.

But we are supposed to be the ones listening and having a clue.

Come on!

+

[Classical_Liberal]

45. That was back during the primaries when he was listening to the Kennedy

asskickers.

[Classical_Liberal]

46. Don't get your hopes up by listening the Kerry bots

apparently on hardball last night, he said "we could find WMD!" at any moment.

[Carni]

21. I am sorry...

I think he intelligent and admirable.

I don't understand all the "bush-lite" talk about Kerry.

If Gore had laid it on the line like this during selection 2000 regarding bush and his sleazy past, I very much doubt we would be dealing with herr bush today!

[Tinoire]

22. This is encouraging.

I would truly like Kerry to go into detail about just how Bush misled them but that's the cynic in me who can't believe that idiot misled the very people we trust to represent us.

Still... encouraging.

[mzmolly]

28. Very encouraging. I hope like hell he gets better and better.

:toast:

[mdguss]

29. I disagree:

Attacking Bush is the wrong way to go about this. All the people hear that want to hear Kerry be Howard Dean and rip Bush consistently, in my view, are way off base. So far, Bush has run a decidely negative and crappy campaign. Kerry should stay above the fray and tell people what he's going to do.

For instance, Maryland's Governor is going to slash higher education funding. What is that going to do? What is John Kerry going to do to fix the problem of people no longer being able to afford college? Or teachers are being laid off in many states. What does that say about our society? What is Kerry's plan to make sure that we keep class sizes small? There's a bunch more along these lines.

These are subtle, little issues that paint a picture of Bush's reign, and attack him without actually attacking him. When Bush or Cheney attacks--and only when Bush or Cheney attacks--Kerry should say he's ashamed of Bush's negative campaign, and point out inconsistencies in their statements. It'll lead to the impression in swing voters minds that Bush is being mean, while Kerry is being respectful.

Picking a VP would be a good way to get off of the Republican turf and onto our ground. If he waits too long, it'll get burried in the Joe Wilson, Bill Clinton books, 9-11 commission report news of the summer.

[mzmolly]

30. Above the frey my arse. He should tell the truth.

He represents more than 50% of the population and he should stand up and fight these criminals with every fiber of his being.

You don't motivate voters by beating around the "Bush." We need a leader not a wet noodle.

I like the John Kerry I am seeing lately and I suspect most voters will agree.

As for his position on education etc.... he has a plan for this country. He talks about it often.

I dont think you have to give up passion to discuss a platform.

[mdguss]

31. Attacking people just brings them:

Onto your level. The word positive campaign means a lot. Ed Rendell was particularly masterful at this when he was running for Governor of Pennsylvania. Kerry should (and he pretty much is) do what Rendell did when Bob Casey went over board on the negative ads. People here should stop yelling fight! Which is what all these, Kerry should attack posts are. There's a way to deliver all of the attacks on Bush without coming off as negative, and it is the way to go.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Have you seen Bush's outright lies of ads????

Bush is in the gutter trying to drag us down with him. We will rise above his deceit and chicanery no matter.

[mdguss]

33. We won't rise above it if it looks like a food fight:

And if Kerry does what people here want him to do, and basically says, "George Bush is a liar" at every campaign stop, the public will think it's a food fight. If both people are engaged in the food fight, it's just politicians being politicians, and Bush's behavior will be tolerated. And yes, I've seen the ads--dozens of times thanks to the fact that part of our cable system runs into West Virginia.

[mzmolly]

38. I think your wrong. All Kerry has to do is tell the truth. Bush HAS to

resort to filth politics.

Doing so is not what I am suggesting. What I suggest is to go after Bush HARD on his record, and not take any bull.

[sangh0]

62. Like Dean did?

Why are you so sure that "All Kerry has to do is tell the truth...go after Bush HARD on his record, and not take any bull" when that didn't work for Dean?

[mzmolly]

71. So he shouldn't tell the truth? He shouldn't go after Bush hard?

He should be a patsy and expect to motivate?

Read the title of the thread. "Kerry is ON FIRE!" Sounds like you want to throw some water on him ey?

BTW, I am not talking about Dean, however Kerry could learn a thing or two from him and his friend Ted Kennedy.

Further, Kerry was the beneficiary of a media take down ... he better capitalize on this opportunity as there is only one shot.

Now let's see if you can respond with out talking about Dean? Somehow I doubt it.

[sangh0]

94. You're avoiding the point with a straw man

I never said that Kerry shouldn't tell the truth or go after Bush* hard. You're just avoiding my point, which is that your assertion that that is how Kerry could win the election is not supported by the evidence provided by Dean's campaign.

For many months, you have lauded Dean (who lost) for the way he ran his campaign, and criticized Kerry (who won) for the way he has run his campaign.

Read the title of the thread. "Kerry is ON FIRE!" Sounds like you want to throw some water on him ey?

You shoul read that title again because it shows why your entire argument (that Kerry isn't fighting Bush* hard enough) is based on false premises.

BTW, I am not talking about Dean, however Kerry could learn a thing or two from him and his friend Ted Kennedy.

Of course you're not talking about Dean. Talking about Dean reveals why your advice is so foolish.

Further, Kerry was the beneficiary of a media take down

Another bizarre Deaniacal argument. Dean was taken down by the media because of his campaign, and so Kerry should do the same exact thing. I guess Kerry has some magical power that lets him escape the fate Dean's campaign led to.

"Stupid" has been defined as banging your head against the wall over and over, each time thinking "But this time, it won't hurt". Your advice is the equivalent of asking Kerry to bang his head against the wall the way Dean did.

No wonder you don't want to talk about Dean.

Now let's see if you can respond with out talking about Dean? Somehow I doubt it.

I'll stop talking about Dean when you can explain why I should stop talking about Dean. You can't expect that I'm going to stop merely because you say I should.

[mzmolly]

100. Sangh0, your twisting of reality is unbelievable. I don't know why I

bother.

I never said that Kerry shouldn't tell the truth or go after Bush* hard. You're just avoiding my point, which is that your assertion that that is how Kerry could win the election is not supported by the evidence provided by Dean's campaign.

Huh? Again you missed the point. Dean was on top until the media decided to take him out Sangh0. It wasn't Kerry's brilliant strategy, or Dean's speaking out against Bush. It was because Dean announced on Hardball that he would break up the media monopoly.

For many months, you have lauded Dean (who lost) for the way he ran his campaign, and criticized Kerry (who won) for the way he has run his campaign.

Your wrong, I think Dean made some mistakes-I've said that before. I also don't think Kerry could ever BE Dean. But, I would like him to be more authentic, like the fighter who came back from Nam and protested the war. He's got it in him, he needs to release it. Kerry should remain a political opponent to Bush and co.

You shoul read that title again because it shows why your entire argument (that Kerry isn't fighting Bush* hard enough) is based on false premises.

No Sangh0, I want Kerry to CONTINUE to fight. You appear to want something different.

Dean was taken down by the media because of his campaign, and so Kerry should do the same exact thing. I guess Kerry has some magical power that lets him escape the fate Dean's campaign led to.

What about his campaign frightened the media Sangh0? There are an abundance of articles that share my view. Many from respected liberals/democrats/leftists - many of whom did not support Dean.

I'll stop talking about Dean when you can explain why I should stop talking about Dean. You can't expect that I'm going to stop merely because you say I should.

Yeah, why stop now... it would force you to talk about John Kerry. :scared: I'll stop talking about Dean when I am ready to do so also...

However, the thread is about John Kerry. And, I am not the only one who feels Kerry should "stand up and fight." I just saw an article yesterday to this effect. Many are feeling this way, how else do you explain his slide in the polls? He was beating Bush handilly, now he is in danger of losing to him.

So Sangh0, Did you like his Hardball performance, or was it too "Dean" for you?

[sangh0]

101. I did not say those things you asked about. That is reality

Welcome to it.

point. Dean was on top until the media decided to take him out Sangh0. It wasn't Kerry's brilliant strategy, or Dean's speaking out against Bush. It was because Dean announced on Hardball that he would break up the media monopoly.

And again, you fail to explain how Kerry could avoid the same fate.

Besides, Dean lost because of Gore's endorsement.

You appear to want something different.

Keep repeating that straw man. The fact that you have to qualify your straw man with a "appear to want" shows how weak it is. Even you can't claim that I said anything that supports your straw man

What about his campaign frightened the media Sangh0. There are an abundance of articles that share my view. Many from respected liberals/democrats/leftists - many of whom did not support Dean.

Arguing about how many people agree with you is known as "argument by authority". It helps if the "authorities" you cite are people with more credibility that journalists, pundits, and liberal bloggers. I can find just as many that would disagree with you, and even if I couldn't, numbers don't make someone right.

Yeah, why stop now... it would force you to talk about John Kerry.

I have no problem talking about how Kerry's winning strategy helped him win the primaries, and how it's helped lower Bush*'s poll numbers, and how Kerry's record makes his particularly well-suited to lead the nation at this time, and how his policies will benefit the entire nation and the entire world.

I am not the only one who feels Kerry should "stand up and fight."

And I'm not the only one who thinks that Kerry has stood and fought far more than any other candidate. Numbers prove nothing and is a resort for the weak. Claiming that people agree with you does not impress me.

[mzmolly]

104. Here is how Kerry avoids the same fate.... ready?

By not threatening to break up the media. Get it?

Besides, Dean lost because of Gore's endorsement.

Well then Kerry has nothing to worry about :eyes:

Keep repeating that straw man. The fact that you have to qualify your straw man with a "appear to want" shows how weak it is. Even you can't claim that I said anything that supports your straw man

Straw man? I say I want Kerry to continue to be forceful and go after Bush, and you say this will lead to his demise? It's not a strawman, it's what you've been saying all along.

Arguing about how many people agree with you is known as "argument by authority". It helps if the "authorities" you cite are people with more credibility that journalists, pundits, and liberal bloggers. I can find just as many that would disagree with you, and even if I couldn't, numbers don't make someone right.

Who's credible enough for you Sangh0? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened to Dean. Let me tell you it had NADA to do with John Kerry's brilliant campaign strategy.

I have no problem talking about how Kerry's winning strategy helped him win the primaries, and how it's helped lower Bush*'s poll numbers, and how Kerry's record makes his particularly well-suited to lead the nation at this time, and how his policies will benefit the entire nation and the entire world.

Care to touch on what part of his strategy is "winning?"

By the way, I agree that Kerry's policies will benefit the nation. He's already got my vote.

[sangh0]

107. Too late

Kerry already has a record of taking positions against media consolidation. He opposed Michael Powell's new FCC regs which allowed increased media consolidation.

I say I want Kerry to continue to be forceful and go after Bush, and you say this will lead to his demise? It's not a strawman, it's what you've been saying all along.

No, you've argued that what Kerry is doing now is new. Kerry has been attacking Bush* for longer than Dean has. While Dean was praising Bush* for the fine job Bush* did in Afghanistan, Kerry was saying that Bush* totally screwed up in Afghanistan, and pointed to the disaster at Tora Bora.

Who's credible enough for you Sangh0?

Wrong question. You should have asked *WHAT* is credible enough for me. The answer - a good argument, supported by a proponderance of the evidence

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened to Dean. Let me tell you it had NADA to do with John Kerry's brilliant campaign strategy.

All it takes is an Internet connection to "figure it out". But it takes a lot more to figure it out correctly.

And while Kerry's strategy wasn't the cause of Dean's loss, I do think it had something to do with why Kerry won, and one of the other candidates, like Edwards or Gephardt or one of the others.

Care to touch on what part of his strategy is "winning?"

Sure - His policies, his repeated criticisms of Bush* policy, his record, his character, and his sticking around campaign events until he answered every question from every one who had one.

[mzmolly]

116. Taking a position against the FCC regs is not bold...

I dont know of many Democrats who didn't.

Dean has stated he would break up the media were he elected. Has Kerry? NO.

No, you've argued that what Kerry is doing now is new. Kerry has been attacking Bush* for longer than Dean has. While Dean was praising Bush* for the fine job Bush* did in Afghanistan, Kerry was saying that Bush* totally screwed up in Afghanistan, and pointed to the disaster at Tora Bora.

Well, I guess if you count using the F-word in Rolling Stone? In all seriousness Kerry has spoken out, but needs to do more. What has he said about 911? Has he held Bush responsible? If so great.

Wrong question. You should have asked *WHAT* is credible enough for me. The answer - a good argument, supported by a proponderance of the evidence.

If only...

All it takes is an Internet connection to "figure it out". But it takes a lot more to figure it out correctly.

Do share some of that credible "evidence" you claim to have at your finger tips. You make many assertions providing zero evidence, then claim that the evidence I actually provide isn't *enough* for you LOL ...

Sure - His policies, his repeated criticisms of Bush* policy, his record, his character, and his sticking around campaign events until he answered every question from every one who had one.

Wow! Ok not.

[sangh0]

119. Why not?

You can say it all you want, but until you provide an argument to support your assertion, all you've got is an unsupported claim.

Media corps spent millions of dollars fighting FOR those rules, and they certainly weren't happy that Dems like Kerry fought back. IMO, it's ridiculous to think that a non-specific campaign promise like "break up media consolidation" is more threatening than opposition to a policy that is about to be implemented by the govt.

And again, Kerry has done more to fight media consolidation than Dean has. Your entire argument rests on ONE STATEMENT by Dean.

Well, I guess if you count using the F-word in Rolling Stone? In all seriousness Kerry has spoken out, but needs to do more. What has he said about 911? Has he held Bush responsible? If so great.

It figures that you would focus on the f-word, and ignore the policy critique about Afghanistan.

And yes, Kerry has said that Bush* screwed up and is responsible for 9/11. And as far as "doing more" goes, I'm sure Kerry is not going to stop doing what he has been doing - attacking Bush*

Do share some of that credible "evidence" you claim to have at your finger tips. You make many assertions providing zero evidence, then claim that the evidence I actually provide isn't *enough* for you LOL ...

I haven't claimed to have anything at my fingertips, just as I've never said that Kerry shouldn't tell the truth, or that Kerry shouldn't attack Bush*. That's just the stuff you make up when you've run low on real arguments.

[mzmolly]

124. What is my assertion Sangh0. What is my argument exactly?

I don't think you know.

Allow me to restate my initial statement, the one you took issue with. From my post # 32.

"What I suggest is to go after Bush HARD on his record, and not take any bull."

There it is, my argument. What part exactly do you disagree with???

You assert Kerry has always done so do you not?

[sangh0]

132. "Taking a position against the FCC regs is not bold" is your assertion

and you have yet to provide an argument to support it.

There it is, my argument. What part exactly do you disagree with???

The part that assumes Kerry hasn't been doing this all along.

You assert Kerry has always done so do you not?

I assert that Kerry has been doing this for a long time now.

[mzmolly]

139. You are quite humerous.

I assert that Kerry has been doing this for a long time now.

Really, then why did you mention Dean failed by doing so?

When I said Kerry should go after Bush hard, you replied that Dean had done so and it so it was ill advised-because he lost.

Now you say, Kerry has done so all along.

Which is it?

Your contradicting yourself all over the place Sangh0.

[sangh0]

154. Here's why

Really, then why did you mention Dean failed by doing so?

You have been arguing that Kerry should be doing more of this. Dean did more of this. Dean lost.

When I said Kerry should go after Bush hard, you replied that Dean had done so and it so it was ill advised-because he lost

No, when you said Kerry should go after Bush* hard, you implied that he hadn't been doing that. He has been doing that.

It is ill-advised for him to do more of it and/or do it more like the way Dean did. Kerry has been doing just fine so far without your advice. Furthermore, your preferred model for a successful strategy is one that hasn't met with success. Dean used it, and lost.

Your inability to understand how bad your advice is does not, in any way, indicate a contradiction on my part.

[mzmolly]

162. LOL

You even managed to contradict yourself in your latest reply.

You have been arguing that Kerry should be doing more of this. Dean did more of this. Dean lost.

And...

No, when you said Kerry should go after Bush* hard, you implied that he hadn't been doing that. He has been doing that.

So Dean lost because he went after Bush hard - but Kerry's been fine doing it all along? :crazy:

It is ill-advised for him to do more of it and/or do it more like the way Dean did. Kerry has been doing just fine so far without your advice. Furthermore, your preferred model for a successful strategy is one that hasn't met with success. Dean used it, and lost.

Actually YOU brought Dean into this conversation, not me. And, I've explained some of the reasons Dean lost, going after Bush is not one of them. Going after Bush is the reason he was the front runner for many months. It's how he energized voters, it's how he raised funds. If you think going after Bush is a recipe for failure, let me say THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

Kerry needs to energize voters and go after Bush, this we agree on correct?

[Forkboy]

175. What do YOU think he should do?

[mzmolly]

34. *Attacking?* If the truth hurts, so be it.

Bush is "negative" for this country. The Republicans are effective at "attacking" and they do it time and time again. Democrats are often of the false belief that we should take the high road. We'll the only road were taking is the one back to Mass. if Kerry doesn't "fight fire with fire."

[mdguss]

35. The idea is to win:

Not to try to pound the guy into the ground, and hammer your foot by accident. Attack him, yes, but in precise and indirect ways. Be more positive in engaging in the debate--go through the archives of Pennsylvania papers on the 2002 primary. It'll show how Rendell did that very effectively. (FYI I voted for Bob Casey, Jr).

[mzmolly]

37. And in order to win Kerry has to *stand up* so he can motivate people

to get off their asses and vote.

There is no reason Kerry can't be negative about Boosh, and positive about his vision.

[sangh0]

41. Isn't that how Dean won?

Oh wait....Dean didn't win.

[mzmolly]

47. No Dean was deemed *unelectable and unfit for office* much like their

doing to Kerry now. :hi: Thankfully though, Kerry enjoys the benefit of support from the party, Dean did not.

Dean had the DLC, the media and the Republicans to contend with. Kerry only has the later two and the media to a much lesser extent.

[sangh0]

49. It doesn't sound like your advice is very sound

After all, you're suggesting that Kerry follow the strategy that led Dean to defeat.

[Classical_Liberal]

53. Oh so your saying those "good dems' in dlc would betray Kerry

and endorse Bush? I'm shocked!

[sangh0]

54. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

You're so perceptive

[Classical_Liberal]

56. What about the situation of a bunch republicans running our

party doesn't piss you off?

[sangh0]

59. Why don't you tell me?

After all, you're so perceptive

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. What about the fact that that situation is a figment of your imagination?

[Classical_Liberal]

82. Is Will Marshall a figmant of my imagination

?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. What you said is a figment of your imagination.

And what you said was:

" What about the situation of a bunch republicans running our

party doesn't piss you off? "


That comment is not based on reality in any way.

[mzmolly]

66. I'm suggesting that Kerry do more of what he did on Hardball. If you are

unhappy with his performance therein write the campaign.

I am suggesting that Kerry be honest and talk in less lofty terms.

I am suggesting that Kerry be a political opponent to Bush and Co.

I am suggesting that Kerry motivate voters by being straight with them.

I am not suggesting that he tout his desire to break up the media, because THAT is what led to Dean's defeat.

Kerry benefited from the Dean media take down so thank Mr. Murdoch won't you?

"Dean was stripped of half his popular support in the space of two weeks in January while John Kerry – tied in the polls with Carol Moseley-Braun at seven percent just two months earlier – rose like a genie from a bottle to become the overnight presidential frontrunner. Both candidates were shocked and disoriented by the dizzying turns of fortune, and for good reason. Neither Dean nor Kerry had done anything on their own that could have so dramatically altered the race. Corporate America decided that Dean must be savaged, and its media sector made it happen."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/75/75_cover_dean_media.html

:hi:

[sangh0]

73. Dean's statement about breaking up the media is why he lost?

How did Dean expect to break up the media when he couldn't even fight back against their distortions?

Neither Dean nor Kerry had done anything on their own that could have so dramatically altered the race.

Even your own source makes it clear that success had nothing to do with the candidates or what they did, so your suggestion that Kerry change what he does is refuted by your own source.

[mzmolly]

86. What the article states is that the MEDIA altered the race Sangh0

That illustrates my point. Kerry benefited from the Dean take down. Who's going to air Dean fighting back?! The same media that desires his demise? Surely you jest?

Read the article won't you?

Here's more since you didn't absorb the meaning the first time round.

"This commentary, however, is not about the merits of Howard Dean. If a mildly progressive, Internet-driven, young white middle class-centered, movement-like campaign such as Dean’s – flush with money derived from unconventional sources, backed by significant sections of labor, reinforced by big name endorsements and surging with upward momentum – can be derailed in a matter of weeks at the whim of corporate media, then all of us are in deep trouble. The Dean beat-down should signal an intense reassessment of media’s role in the American power structure."

[sangh0]

95. The article says more than that

That illustrates my point. Kerry benefited from the Dean take down. Who's going to air Dean fighting back?! The same media that desires his demise? Surely you jest?

And if Kerry were to take your advice and do what Dean did, he would get the same treatment from the media.

And the newest quote you provided reinforces my argument that your advice would lead to a Kerry defeat. It says that Dean's experience "should signal an intense reassessment of media’s role in the American power structure."

Instead of reassessing, you say "Hold the course! Full steam ahead!!" You don't seem to be even trying to re-assess anything. You're still holding on to the same ideas and tactics that led to Dean's defeat.

[mzmolly]

98. No Sangh0. He would benefit from the same attention Dean got early on.

Dean got "the treatment" when he said he would break up the media.

As per usual, you missed the point. Dean was NOT taken down UNTIL he spoke out against the media...

"Corporate America decided that Dean must be savaged, and its media sector made it happen."

The reason they wanted him savaged Sangh0, was because he threatend them. As I said, I do not suggest Kerry threaten to break up the media, but I do want Kerry to be a threat to Bush.

[sangh0]

102. Kerry can't control what kind of attention the media gives him

and that's why your whole argument is so foolish. It assumes that there is some magical power Kerry can exercise that will allow him to control how the media covers him.

Dean was NOT taken down UNTIL he spoke out against the media...

No, Dean wasn't taken down UNTIL Gore endorsed him. The media hates Gore, and that's why they went after Dean (Note: I hope that's a lesson for you in the Fallacy of Conflating Correlation with Causation)

The reason they wanted him savaged Sangh0, was because he threatend them. As I said, I do not suggest Kerry threaten to break up the media, but I do want Kerry to be a threat to Bush.

A threat to Bush* *IS* a threat to all of Corporate America, including the media corps which they own. IMO, it's incredibly naive to think that the media's interests are independent of the interests of the corporations that own the media.

[mzmolly]

105. Your whole argument is based on Kerry meeting Dean's demise if he

campaigns more like a political opponent to Bush. Now you say the media will treat Kerry the same no matter what he does?

Look, the media loves a story ... Kerry needs to give them one. He can do that by going after Bush like he did on Hardball. He will then have an opportunity to prop his vision for the nation, but there has to be a healthy amount of controversy. And, if Bush isn't fodder for controversy, who is?

No, Dean wasn't taken down UNTIL Gore endorsed him. The media hates Gore, and that's why they went after Dean (Note: I hope that's a lesson for you in the Fallacy of Conflating Correlation with Causation)

This makes your whole argument moot. If it's all about Gore endorsing Dean, then Kerry can do as he pleases can he not? He'll be "safe" because Gore hasn't formally endorsed him ... :eyes:

A threat to Bush* *IS* a threat to all of Corporate America, including the media corps which they own. IMO, it's incredibly naive to think that the media's interests are independent of the interests of the corporations that own the media.

This is where your wrong. Kerry is no more of a threat to the corporate media then Bush is. This the reason he is where he is today. Sure the media prefers Bush, but Kerry is a safe opponent, which is why he is the nominee.

Here's more...

"What happened in the campaign that inspired the media to turn on Dean and throw their support to uninspiring Kerry? A clue may be found in a story published in the Washington Post on November 19, 2003. The Post reported: "In an interview Monday night , Dean unveiled his idea to 're-regulate' utilities, large media companies and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad protections for workers including the right to unionize.

Also on November 19, the Associated Press reported, "Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectiors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom."

Dean's idea of re-regulating two out-of-control business sectors produced criticism from some of his competitors and surely struck a raw nerve within monopolistic utilities and mega-media companies. I believe Dean's progressive attack on monopolies helps explain why the corporate media started piling on Dean, portraying him with the pejorative term of the angry candidate..

But while this helps explain why the media went after Dean, it doesn't explain why they suddenly anointed Kerry as their Golden Boy. However, it would appear that Kerry would not post a threat to corporate America while Dean would."

http://www.joplinindependent.com/display_article.php/c-jensen1075581263

There is countless analysis to this effect Sangh0. I do hope Kerry realizes that his *winning* strategy is merely protecting the media interests.

[sangh0]

109. OK

Look, the media loves a story ... Kerry needs to give them one. He can do that by going after Bush like he did on Hardball. He will then have an opportunity to prop his vision for the nation, but there has to be a healthy amount of controversy. And, if Bush isn't fodder for controversy, who is?

Kerry has been going after Bush* like he did on Hardball, and when he was low in the polls, he got no media attention for it. Your claim assumes that Kerry can not only get media attention (now that he's the presumptive nominee, I'm sure he could) but also CONTROL it and how it portrays him. I don't think there's a snowball in hell's chance of that.

This makes your whole argument moot. If it's all about Gore endorsing Dean, then Kerry can do as he pleases can he not? He'll be "safe" because Gore hasn't formally endorsed him ...

No, what it shows is that simplistic theories about how one factor caused a candidates loss is just that, simplistic.

This is where your wrong. Kerry is no more of a threat to the corporate media then Bush is. This the reason he is where he is today. Sure the media prefers Bush, but Kerry is a safe opponent, which is why he is the nominee.

Another assertion without any support. You can repeat that all you want (just as you repeat journalist's opinions as if they were persuasive and authoritative)

And Kerry is the nominee because Democrats voted for him in the primaries.

There is countless analysis to this effect Sangh0.

And there are countless analyses that say the opposite. Argument by authority is considered dishonest. Opinions don't become facts merely because many journalists agree with it.

[mzmolly]

112. Well then prove them wrong?

"Opinions don't become facts merely because many journalists agree with it."

Fact: Kerry is not a threat to major media
Fact: Kerry is not a threat to the DLC
Fact: Kerry is not a threat to corporate america

Fact: Kerry isn't enough of a threat to Bush.
This is one fact, I'd like to see change-his recent performance on Hardball was "encouraging."

As I said, life calls. Have the last word Sangh0...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. I disagree, he's only pointing out that you are advocating

Kerry follow a strategy that is a proven loser.


You are basing your argument on the dubious premise that the media 'took down' Dean - and as evidence you provide some vacuous opinion piece.

It's a fantasy. Dean lost because he was rejected by the voters. Deal with it.

[mzmolly]

117. And he was rejected by the voters because the media deemed him

*angry*

*unelectable*

Deal with it.

Further he is saying that I suggest Kerry use Dean's strategy when I haven't.

Deal with it.

And, Sangh0 has said this:

When did I say I didn't mention Dean - I did mention him, and I will continue to do so because I think it's relevant.~Sangh0

So you see, Sangh0 finds Dean "relevant" and continues to mention him. I am trying to discuss Kerry...

[sangh0]

121. So all those Dean supporters listened to the media?

That doesn't say much for Dean supporters.

Didn't Dean bring all sorts of new people into the political process? Are you saying that those new voters listened to the media, and didn't vote for Dean, even though for many years they ignored the media and didn't vote at all?

So you see, Sangh0 finds Dean "relevant" and continues to mention him. I am trying to discuss Kerry...

You are also trying to deny that you are arguing that Kerry (who won) should use the same strategy Dean used, and lost with.

[mzmolly]

125. If people didn't listen to the media, there would be no point in running

campaign commercials. Dean was facing "commercials against him" in every news show daily. Eventually it took a toll. There isn't anyone who could have withstood that kind of assault.

I did not say he should use the Dean strategy. You said so in post #62 "your initial strawman."

[sangh0]

133. SO why didn't they vote for DK? Why did they vote for Kerry?

The media attack on Dean explains (according to you) why Dean lost, but it doesn't explain why they voted for Kerry as opposed to their voting for Dean.

I did not say he should use the Dean strategy.

Yes you did. You just didn't call it "the Dean strategy". You just suggest that Kerry do things that are exactly like what Dean did. And you have a record here on DU of speaking out in support of candidates who do what Dean did, and criticizing those who do not. The fact that you haven't used the exact sequence of words "He should use the Dean strategy" does not change the fact that you are suggesting that Kerry (who won) do what Dean (who lost) did.

[mzmolly]

142. I have explained this. DK was marginalized from the beginning.

Kerry was most peoples "second choice" Edwards was just behind him. DK is yet another distraction but I won't bite on it this time.

"Yes you did. You just didn't call it "the Dean strategy". You just suggest that Kerry do things that are exactly like what Dean did."

Ahhhh no.

What I said again Sangh0 was that Kerry should go after Bush hard, and not take any bull-that is an exact quote.

You then mentioned that he shouldn't because Dean lost by doing so. Now you say Kerry has has been doing as I suggest all along. You can't make up your own mind.

Just more double talk from YOU Sangh0. Speaking ones history on DU, I'm not surprised at your actions.

Though I won't personally take part in this desperate nonsense any longer.

I think this dance is tiresome. Ciao'

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. That is only your opinion, and I think it's wrong.

You don't think the primary results are relevant to the general election?


:wtf:

[mzmolly]

140. What part of the primaries do you consider relevant to this discussion??

:wtf: Ya'll can't seem to make up your minds here.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. The entire process.

Everything we learned about the campaigns, the candidates, the election results -- it's all relevant.


On the other hand, someone's unsupported opinion about the primaries -- let's say the motivations of voters or non-voters -- might be considered relevant to some degree, but not to the same degree as facts, for instance, the fact that Kerry ran a winning campaign that 95% of DUers thought was a losing campaign.

[sangh0]

155. And I agree. It's all relevant

and the reason why mzmolly doesn't want to understand that is because an examination of the primaries reveals how foolish her suggestions are.

[mzmolly]

172. I agree the primaries are relevant too.

What's this the Bush/Cheney match-up? Your not capable of answering your own questions.

I was letting FFC have the last word on this because it's friggin obvious that the primaries are relevant. It falls under the NO SHIT SHERLOCK category. I was simply wanting specifics, since I got mumbo jumbo, I let it go.

I simply don't think Dean was relevant to the current discussion about what Kerry should do to win-especially given the fact that I am not the one who suggested Kerry become Dean.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. If Kerry is elected at all he owes it all to Dean

Dean drove down Bush's poll numbers. It was a dlc plot to use Gephardt to drive down Deans, because the dlc is pnac.

[sangh0]

50. LOL!

Bush*'s numbers have gone down faster since AFTER Dean dropped out (or suspended) his campaign.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. They didn't start going down till Dean attacked him

and I doubt they would. You have to realize that unless dems attack Bush for being a screwup the Press has no incentive to cover Bush's screwups.

[sangh0]

55. The #'s went down faster AFTER Dean suspended his campaign

and you won't even respond to that.

[Classical_Liberal]

57. He got the ball rolling

. Kerry started attacking Bush. Then he won the primaries and quit. That is the only responce you'll get.

[sangh0]

60. Bush*'s numbers went down faster AFTER Dean dropped out

and you won't respond to that point.

[mzmolly]

67. Bullshit. Bush is improving in the polls with Dean out of the race.

*

[sangh0]

70. Bush*'s numbers went down faster AFTER Dean dropped out

and you won't respond to that point.

[mzmolly]

72. I did respond. I said your full of crap.

:hi: Response to this effect #2.

[sangh0]

74. I apologize. I mistook your post for one of CL's

To repond to your point, it's a fantasy. Bush*'s numbers are lower than they've even been with a short exception just prior to 9/11.

Bush* numbers went both up (his approval rate, but barely) and down (the direction the country is headed in went DOWN by 11 points) in the last week, but it took almost $60million to do that.

IOW, your claim about Bush*'s numbers going up is very, very weak, and only works by ignoring most of the context

[mzmolly]

81. I'd say the same about your case.

"very, very weak"

Talk about ignoring context. :eyes:

[sangh0]

84. You can say whatever you like

bt you might want to identify the context I left out if you expect anyone to believe you

[mzmolly]

87. I've identified it several times within this thread. Right back atcha

Sangh0.

[sangh0]

96. NO, all you've done is to argue against including the context

In several posts you've argued that we should not examine Dean's campaign, and cited Bush* approval #'s (which have gone down to their lowest level since Kerry became the presumptive nominee) while ignoring the millions he spent

You see, I can detail the context you've ignored, even if you can't do the same

[mzmolly]

108. No Sangh0. You mentioned Dean, not me... However since you did

I think Kerry could benefit from Dean's campaign lessons and here is how.

1. He could motivate countless people by going after Bush.

2. He could remain a darling of the media, the DLC and corporations by continuing to be a non threat to them.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17881

"In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy tax-benefits for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy. In 1968, a bullet ended Robert Kennedy's anti-establishment candidacy. In 2004, the methods used were more subtle, but just as effective."

Dean lost because he was a threat to the media the DLC and corporate America. Mainly because he threatened the media ... Kerry is not a threat to any of the above, nor am I suggesting he become so. I am merely asking him to be a threat to Bush.

Dean is your strawman Sangh0. We've spent so much time evading Kerry's weaknesses by talking about Dean. Good job! :toast:

I've got a life that beckons. Catch you on your next rampage. :hi:

[sangh0]

111. When did I say I didn't mention Dean

I did mention him, and I will continue to do so because I think it's relevant.

think Kerry could benefit from Dean's campaign lessons and here is how.

1. He could motivate countless people by going after Bush.

2. He could remain a darling of the media, the DLC and corporations by continuing to be a non threat to them.

1) Kerry has gone after Bush* for longer than Dean has

2) Kerry has done more to oppose media consolidation *AND* corporate interests than Dean has done.

Dean lost because he was a threat to the media the DLC and corporate America. Mainly because he threatened the media ... Kerry is not a threat to any of the above, nor am I suggesting he become so. I am merely asking him to be a threat to Bush.

Keep repeating that. Maybe someday, someone will be persuaded. Dean lost because of Gore's endorsement

Dean is your strawman Sangh0

Obviously, you don't know what a straw man is. It's a refutation to an argument that wasn't made. In order for me to use Dean as a straw man, I'd have to claim that you made an argument based on Dean's experience.

I have not done that. I haven't said that you used Dean's experience. I said you've done the opposite, and refused to consider Dean's experience. I'm the one who put forward an argument using Dean's experience, so it's not a straw man.

[mzmolly]

115. OMG

"Obviously, you don't know what a straw man is. It's a refutation to an argument that wasn't made. In order for me to use Dean as a straw man, I'd have to claim that you made an argument based on Dean's experience."

You have claimed this time and time again on this thread. Your claim was that I wanted Kerry to use the same strategy Dean did...

As I said before, let's use Ted Kennedy as an example.

I'd like Kerry to take a few fighting lessons from Teddy. MMMMK?

"Kerry has gone after Bush* for longer than Dean has"

Gone after? That's a strong way to put it.

Kerry has done more to oppose media consolidation *AND* corporate interests than Dean has done.

Really. Do you have some more information on this? I'd like to see it.

[sangh0]

122. And how does your suggestion differ from Dean's strategy?

It is the same strategy

And Kennedy isn't running for President. If he were, Kerry would act as HIS proxy, and make the sort of attacks Kennedy is making.

Really. Do you have some more information on this? I'd like to see it.

Sure, look up Kerry's record on Thomas, or you can look on Kerry's website.

[mzmolly]

126. Dean's strategy did not consist of a singular approach.

"Sure, look up Kerry's record on Thomas, or you can look on Kerry's website."

Nah, I will await your information as you claim that arguments should be bolstered by facts. Here is your chance to not look like a hypocrite.

[sangh0]

134. You didn't suggest a singular approach

and your suggestion mirrors the strategy that Dean (who lost) used, which is why when asked, the only "difference" you can name is one that doesn't exist.

Nah, I will await your information as you claim that arguments should be bolstered by facts. Here is your chance to not look like a hypocrite

Keep waiting. Don't hold your breath

[mzmolly]

144. Read my post 38 Sangh0 for my actual suggestion. You know what I said

but you can't save face if you admit it.

Oh, I never hold my breath waiting for you to prove anything.

[sangh0]

156. You've said more than that mzmolly

You've also said that, up until now, Kerry hadn't been doing enough of it, which is obviously a suggestion that he do more of it.

I can understand why you'd want to limit me to reviewing post #38 and only that one post. However, you have made many posts in this thread, and I see no reason why I should ignore all of them but one.

ANd as far as supplying you with info, I've told you where you can find it. If you need to have it spoon fed to you, you'll have to speak to someone else.

[mzmolly]

173. Oh my what an enjoyable evening.

Post 38 was my initial assertion, the one were I never mentioned Dean... You came back with "what like Dean did?"

It's been a nice distraction hasn't it?

Not once will you see me suggest that Kerry adopt the Dean campaign strategy. Kerry is Kerry, I just want him to have a bit more *fire.*

Regarding the spoon feeding, it was you who suggested that everyone back up assertions with evidence, yet you refuse to do so. I have provided some evidence in this discussion, you have not.

Cheerio :hi:

I'm leaving work now and my PC. Have a great night...

[sangh0]

63. The #'s went down faster AFTER Dean suspended his campaign

Since "the ball is rolling" there's no need for Kerry to do anything.

That is the only responce you'll get.

Do you think I expected more from you?

[mzmolly]

68. Ah... NO they did not. They went down for a time after Clark testified

that "the capture of Saddam did not make America safer" among other things.

But as you know, Bush is beating Kerry IN SPITE of that in many national polls. In spite of MANY scandals in this administration.

[sangh0]

75. You're really out of it with those "facts"

Bush*'s numbers have been steadily dropping. There have been a few occassions when his numbers have risen sightly, but there hasn't been a prolonged period where Bush*'s numbers go up since Dean dropped out. Also, Bush*'s numbers are lower now than they were when Dean dropped out.

Also, Kerry and Bush* are tied in the polls, and Kerry has ALWAYS outpolled Dean when they were put in one on one races against Bush*. You can complain about what a poor job Kerry is doing, and what a great job Dean did, but Dean hasn't beaten anyone at anytime in this race. Kerry has.

[mzmolly]

85. Bush is BEATING Kerry soundly in SEVERAL national polls...

in spite of 3 books that highlite the lies of this administration. Can you say "context"???

Talk about out of touch.

Here's some facts for you...

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732 NOTE, Dean was IN the RACE at this time! He was also the front runner.

WE both know that what is happening in the media has a great bearing on national opinion. And, Kerry is not capitalzing as he should be on Bush's lies. I am encouraged to see him BEGIN to do so however.

Additionally, your the one obsessed with Dean. I hadn't mentioned him until YOU did.

As I said, the OP said Kerry IS ON FIRE. Do you think that's a good thing or NOT?

[sangh0]

97. More untruths - Bush* and Kerry are in a statistical tie

and Bush*'s numbers are lower than they've been since before 9/11.

[mzmolly]

99. They are in a statistical tie NOW, but when Dean was in several Dems

were beating Bush in the polls. Further, his approval numbers are higher then they were in September of 2003.

[sangh0]

103. When Dean was in, Kerry beat Dean in one on one matches against Bush*

From the beginning of the primaries, Kerry beat Dean's #'s when it came to running against Bush*. And if Bush* is currently now in a tie (which is a slight improvement compared to 9/2003) the millions of dollars Bush* spent might have something to do with it. Once again you ignore the context in order to make the obviously false argument that we can directly compare 9/03 with today while ignoring everything that has happened in between

[mzmolly]

106. The media giving Kerry a free ride is "context" Sangh0.

I realize that Kerry was ahead of Dean in *some* polls. But, I also realize that Dean brought new voters in, who were not reflected in the numbers. *context*

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. What a laughable statement, totally inconsistent with reality.

The media gave Kerry a free ride? You must have been unconscious during the primaries.

"I also realize that Dean brought new voters in" He did? Did they forget to vote or something? Is it true, or just a myth?

[mzmolly]

118. For someone who claims to be educated....

you've got some learning to do.

Zogby and other pollsters found that overwhelmingly Dean was the first choice of many voters (new to the process) who chose Kerry eventually.

The reason they chose Kerry was because he was considered "electable." The media was largely responsible for the image of the "electable" Kerry and the "unelectable" Dean. Additionaly Gep and Dean aired negative ads in Iowa and turned off voters. Kerry and Edwards benefited from that and the media.

I think the Dean campaign made many mistakes. But, Kerry is the nominee which is why I am attempting to discuss him.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. Another false, untrue assertion.

When did I ever claim to be educated? Besides it's not about me, it's about your facts being wrong.

"Zogby and other pollsters found that overwhelmingly Dean was the first choice of many voters (new to the process) who chose Kerry eventually"

Untrue. You assertion is false. You are welcome to try to provide evidence for this false claim.


It is true that when asked who was the most electable, people overwhelmingly said Kerry. But of course, the followup question of "why" he was the most electable was never asked. Your speculation is without basis.

[mzmolly]

143. Search DU. Dean and Gep were first choice among most voters

in Iowa, but many went with their second choice towards the end. I will prove it if you apologize when I do?

Why he was electable? The reason is that he was not deemed unelectable by the press.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

152. Your assertion is false.

It's simply untrue. You are making an assertion that is unsupported by the facts.

Why he was electable? The reason is that he was not deemed unelectable by the press.

That is nothing but your unsupported opinion and mere speculation.

[mzmolly]

153. No it is true.

:) And supported by exit polls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

157. Can you please name the exit polls that support your assertion?

Please cite them, if they exist.


They don't.


I can't prove something doesn't exist -- it's not possible to prove a negative.


But if the polls you say exist, do indeed exist, you will be able to cite them.

[mzmolly]

158. I did. Zogby for one. Now name yours.

There were others also that had the same information that I note. Kerry and Edwards were heavilly second choice in Iowa, which made a huge difference b/c it was a primary. Further, most Iowa voters agreed with Dean on the *issues* but voted Kerry - Edwards because Dean was considered *unelectable*. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

159. No, I mean actually provide some citation that backs up your assertion.

Like the date of the poll? Or some other snippet of information that we could use to independently validate your unsupported assertion?

I'm not making any assertion, I'm just asking you to provide evidence that your assertion is indeed based on a poll and not on your false recollection.

[mzmolly]

160. I'm waiting for yours and Sangh0's. You started with the assertions

surrounding the polls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

161. That's untrue. I've made no assertion.

You on the other hand, made the following assertion:

Zogby and other pollsters found that overwhelmingly Dean was the first choice of many voters (new to the process) who chose Kerry eventually.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=511427&mesg_id=513068

When I asked you to provide evidence to back up your assertion, you simply repeated the unsupported assertion:

Search DU. Dean and Gep were first choice among most voters

in Iowa, but many went with their second choice towards the end. I will prove it if you apologize when I do?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=511427&mesg_id=513180


Sure, if you can prove it, I'll apologize, although you'll have to tell me what I'm apologizing for, lol

[mzmolly]

163. *YOU butted into a conversation that you were not a part of*

remember?

The statement I made was all over DU. Iower voters agreed with Dean on the issues most closely, but voted for Kerry due to "electablilty" i.e. the media take down was effective.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

164. I'll 'butt in' whenever I damn well please, thank you very much.

You still haven't supported your false and untrue assertion with any evidence.

[mzmolly]

165. I am still waiting for proof of the assertions that Kerry was beating

Bush in the ALL OF THE polls and no one else was. When I get that proof, I'll provide yours.

My assertion remains true, it is yours that is false.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

166. I never made that assertion.

sangh0 did.


Your constant repetition of the same falsehood is becoming tiresome.

[mzmolly]

167. Right, but YOU butted into another conversation.

Your constant repetition of the same falsehood that I am stating a falsehood is becoming tiresome.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

168. I'll 'butt in' whenever I damn well please, thank you very much.

Like whenever someone makes a false assertion, unsupported by citation to evidence, I will feel free to point out their error.

[mzmolly]

169. Aw, I'm touched ...

:cry: but I didn't make a false assertion or an error.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

170. You can't back up your statement because it's wrong.

If you were making a truthful assertion, you would be able to back it up.

[mzmolly]

171. LOL. I can't back it up because Zogby and others have moved on

to current affairs. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

174. I'm glad you finally admitted that you are unable to support your claim.

That only took, what, like 50 posts? If seemed like a thousand.

Of course, now you are making another false claim about the reason, but, whatever, I never thought you would make an honest effort to support your assertion anyway.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

176. I can support it, but I won't take much time to do so as it is not

really an issue now. I checked Zogby and they removed the info. I imagine they have issues of space on their site?

Anyhow, I refuse to spend hours on researching something that is not really relevant to the conversation.

I do know that 40% of Iowans voted for their second choice and Kerry and Edwards benefited from that fact. You can believe it or not.

Call it false, say I'm wrong or lying ... I simply don't care :shrug:

[sangh0]

114. So then make your argument

I'm not the one saying you can't make an argument out of the context. If you want to discuss how the media has treated Kerry, I have no problem with that.

Kerry didn't get a free ride from the media during the early primaries. The media COMPLETELY ignored him, just as it did with Kucinich. Your "free ride" is a fantasy.

I realize that Kerry was ahead of Dean in *some* polls

No, in EVERY SINGLE POLL that matched candidates against Bush* in a one on one matchup, Kerry did better than Dean.

But, I also realize that Dean brought new voters in, who were not reflected in the numbers.

No, the polls I referred to did not exclude people who hadn't voted in previous elections

[mzmolly]

120. No it wasn't every single poll Sangh0. Dean was ahead in some

Kerry in others.

Also, as I said, the media slaughtered Dean. And they ignored Kerry-which turned out to be a blessing aka freeride. They did ignore Kerry, with good reason-which is precisely my point. Kerry needs to be sure they don't ignore him this time. He can do that by taking it to Bush.

Now, I really have to go. I'll check back later :hi:

[sangh0]

123. You are confused

There have been many kinds of polls done. I'm not referring to polls covering primary elections and how primary voters would vote. I am referring to polls that asked "In a head to head competition, would you vote for Bush* or (insert name of one Dem candidate)?"

The answer to those questions showed that Kerry did better against Bush* than Dean did IN EVERY ONE of those polls.

And being ignored by the media is NEVER a blessing.

[mzmolly]

127. dup

*

[mzmolly]

128. Nope your confused. Kerry did not do better in "every single poll"

against Bush. In fact, most of the top candidates were in a statistical tie.

And, if Kerry want's to be noticed by the media, he better do something noteworthy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

130. Please provide evidence to back your false assertion.

What you are saying is simply not true.

Yes there were a few polls in which several candidates were within the margin of error. There may have been one in which Kerry did not fare best, but I don't remember seeing it.

I don't know if the categorical statement "Kerry did better in every single poll" is correct. But it is certainly, very, very close to accurate.

[sangh0]

136. I was referring to one type of specific poll

One type of poll that was making the rounds compared each of the Dem candidates to Bush* in a head to head competition. I am NOT referring to polls that gave a long list of canadidates names and asked them which they preferred.

[mzmolly]

137. Close to accurate?

Nice.. My statements are "lose to accurate" too. :eyes: Funny those of you who demand proof show NONE yourselves.

As I said ALL of the top 5 candidates polled pretty evenly against Bush in MOST polls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. Yes. To make it simple for you, it would be more accurate to say

"virtually every poll"

or

"every poll I've seen"

or

"every poll - if I'm wrong, I'd like to see it"

lol


One more time -- Kerry did indeed do better in virtually every poll against Bush than any other Dem candidate. As far as I know, it was every single poll, but I shy away from categorical statements.

[mzmolly]

145. Again they were all in a statistical dead heat considering the MOE

in "virtually every poll I had seen."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. That is a false and untrue statement.

[mzmolly]

147. "No it is a true and valid statement."

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. I'd like to see you back it up with some citations then.

[mzmolly]

149. You first.

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

150. So I'm obligated to prove your assertions wrong instead of you being

obligated to corroborate them? lol

I have to get to work so I can't take the time even if I wanted to, but I'm content with us disagreeing, and I'll trust those DUers with a memory to know which of us is right.

[mzmolly]

151. Actually I wasn't the first one to mention the *polls* in this discussion.

When you hop into the middle of a conversation, it might be helpful to know what's what.

I also trust the DU-ers with a memory to know who is correct.

TTFN

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

36. Can you say PNAC?

“I think it comes down to this larger ideological, neocon concept of fundamental change in the region,” he said. But “they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.”

Our candidate is telling it like it is, saying the things that need to be said. I'm totally impressed by this, thanks for the post!
Rock on JK!

[MoonRiver]

44. I have noticed that fewer seem to be bashing,

but some naysayers are incorrigible, I'm afraid. At least that's the way it seems to me. But for most of us it's looking like Kerry is going to be one humdinger of a candidate!!!
Goooooo Kerry!!!!

Kick *'s Repuke arse! :kick:

[Bread and Circus]

64. I am firmly in the Pro Kerry camp. I respect him deeply.

He's damn intelligent and he will make a fine President of
ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not just one segment of the population.

Frankly, we need temperance and moderation in these dangerous
times. We don't need an extremist like Bush.

[JHBowden]

69. Kerry Rules!

Time to send him a little more $$$!

[Guaranteed]

92. Excellent. This is great.

If this gets its due coverage, we'll see a change in the polls over this.

[GalleryGod]

93. Because Half of DU are Snivelling Asswipes!

Who let other people like Senator Kerry fight their wars for them.
Punks,Pussies, and Pissants!

[Egnever]

131. And the other half are blind followers

who hide thier heads in the sand and ignore the disaster that is on the horizon due to tyhis poor choice of candidates.