Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It seems that this election cycle will be nasty in MA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 06:15 AM
Original message
It seems that this election cycle will be nasty in MA
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/kerry-still-partying-like-its-1999/
At least, Wade answered well

The Kerry camp fired back on its own: “N.R.S.C. must stand for ‘Nobody Really Shows Competence,’ ” said David Wade, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry. “When people get their facts this wrong they usually lose on the first round of ‘Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?’ ”


And Oginowski does not seem to be afraid of being ridiculous.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1087234&srvc=rss

Republican senatorial candidate Jim Ogonowski is calling opponent Sen. John Kerry a johnny-come-lately when it comes to his support of alternative energy.


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ridiculous is right
He must have missed a lot of Kerry's work in the last few decades and the Presidential campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. You can comment on both posts
I did (under a different name); it didn't take too long. Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Me too - though neither show yet
The NYT one is so frustrating as it holds Kerry to a "rule" of what counts that would leave most Senators - including HRC and Obama with nothing. Note that they went a step beyond the 2004 "rule" that he had to be the sponsor in Thomas (ie the first listed), now it has to be "solely his". So, it not only ignores things enacted with voice votes - is his sense of the Senate resolution that a regional summit was needed in the 2006 defense bill - that the NYT ignored though they gave coverage to the sense of the Senate resolution Biden had that was really not all that different (as Warner noted), it ignores things added to the bill in committee, like the Kerry/Smith mortgage foreclosure contribution (that looks to be one of few parts that helps people in danger of losing homes).

The NYT has owned the Boston Globe for over a decade and what is clear is that someone there absolutely hates John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. yeah, I saw yours in the Herald-- good job!
At the NYT, Gail Collins , who, I think, used to edit the entire oped section (she may not do so anymore), definitely hates JK. In her own columns (which outdo even Maureen Dowd in triviality and snark), she throws in gratuitous sneers about JK at every opportunity. It just infuriates me.

then, of oourse, there' Patrick Healy, who moved from the Globe to the NYT.
And then there's the big hole in the Globe oped section-- the always thoughtful Tom Oliphant , who really understood John Kerry.

I'm so tired of this (substitute here your favorite word for fece). We've got so many real problems. As a voter at a Somerville, MA function said last month to JK, "There are bad problems everywhere": and JK readily agreed. Enough of this (feces), you idiot media people. We've got a country to save.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I've tried to understand why because they seem to
attack him more than they do anyone else. In 2004, I assumed that maybe they just wanted the PNAC experiment to continue, but they were like free republic in their first story on Kerry leading the Alito filibuster. (They toned it down for the print version) What was weird is that they had made a very strong call for someone (though it was HRC they wanted) to lead that - then after it failed, they had articles that condemned the Democrats for losing a battle they could have won.

I just don't get it - his policies are clear, beautifully thought out and they agree with them. Many of us have met him and, even going in as JK fans, I think all of us came away more impressed. It makes no sense when they loved the Clintons - who look far less good in the light of day - HRC often looks downright scary in her sarcastic nastiness and Bill Clinton looks like he needs anger management classes. No matter how bad 2004 or 2006 got, there was none of that in Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. what's PNAC?

An ignorant but curious reader is dying to know. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Project for a New American Century -- the neocons group who wanted
Edited on Tue Apr-15-08 10:31 AM by beachmom
to invade Iraq and create a great dominant American Empire across the globe. Bill Kristol, I believe, headed it up.

Let's just have them speak for themselves:

newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Add http://www.

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


Gee, most of the above names sound familiar. Look at how self assured this radical document is. As far as I'm concerned, it may as well be Mein Kampf. Notice the part I bolded with it being all about "our" interests, not anyone else's. The document is also hilarious, because all the problems they saw have become exponentially worse because of their radical policies. Crap, too bad our boneheaded press hadn't fished out this document after Dick Cheney was named V.P. -- he should have been asked serious questions at the time in 2000. It would have saved us a lot in blood, treasury, and a lost reputation around the world.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. That's for sure
"Crap, too bad our boneheaded press hadn't fished out this document after Dick Cheney was named V.P. -- he should have been asked serious questions at the time in 2000. It would have saved us a lot in blood, treasury, and a lost reputation around the world."

In 2000, I really thought that a man who was one of few to vote against school lunches and to side against Nelson Mandella would be a major liability. I really looked forward to the VP debate - thinking that the funny witty Leiberman would make Cheney appear to be wahat he is. I quickly realized that Leiberman was not witty without written jokes and that he was a pathetic debater.

Not only did the media not do their job on Cheney - I don't think Gore or Leiberman did enough either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC