TNR Mike Crowley's column about Kerry - Grr but funny if you remember they

[Mass]

endorsed Lieberman and are opposed to Kerry because he is too dovish.

He is so wrong and his analysis are soooooo contradictory that you can see he struggles to say Kerry should shut up.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050919&s=crowley092305

UNFORTUNATELY, KERRY ISN'T GIVING UP.
Long Run
by Michael Crowley


Remember John Kerry? It's been a busy week for the 2004 Democratic nominee. On Monday, Kerry delivered a long speech at Brown University blasting the Bush administration's inept response to the Katrina disaster and just about every other thing it's laid a finger on. Two days later, Kerry gave a floor speech in the Senate declaring his unsurprising opposition to the John Roberts nomination.

...

For those who cant access the link, click on the google link below and select the article. (for some reason, it does not ask for a subscription that way).
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=John+%2B+Crowley+%2B+Kerry&btnG=Search+News

[whometense]

1. "his unsurprising opposition"

So...let me get this right...Kerry's job is to be surprising?

What is he now, a magician?

TNR gives me a pain in my ass. Not only did they endorse Lieberman. Does anyone else remember the famous issue where a bunch of different blowhards wrote articles about who they thought was going to win the nomination? It must have been in December 2003 or thereabouts. The only major democrat running who NO ONE WROTE ABOUT?? You got it - Kerry. Ooops. There goes their track record. And credibility.

It makes me laugh (bitterly) when I hear anyone refer to the "liberal publication The New Republic." They are Iraq war supporters and Bush apologists, and it all (including the Lieberman endorsement) goes back to their militantly pro-Israel editorial position.

There, I've said it. And since I'm jewish no one can call me an anti-semite. I guess self-hating jew is still a possibility, though...

[karynnj]

2. Is this a new RW idea?

Brooks used the same slam - that Kerry hasn't had an unpredictable thought in 5 years. (Gee, I wish I understood Kerry as well Brooks does, because I have been surprised by some of the things he's done since the election - starting with the unusual letter sent to all his lists right after the election thanking people and asking them to stay involved.)

[ginnyinWI]

8. hee hee

Ok, first it's bad to be a flip-flopper, and now it's bad to be consistent??? Won't they please make up their minds! I guess they are trying to make Kerry seem boring and very "old news". They just can't seem to stand a politician who just keeps relentlessly pushing forward what he feels is important, so they carp. But the very fact that they are commenting belies their hinting that he is irrelevant!

[karynnj]

10. Great point

It's impossible to both be totally predictable and a flip flopper.

[TayTay]

3. TNR hates Kerry.

Their editor is a war hawk and wants Kerry gone.

The article in quesiton also relies on notoriously unscientific beauthy pageant polls online. This is unbalanced and untrue and TNR's candidates never poll highly on liberal blogs. (And TNR hated Dean. It is odd that they would pump KOS as a reliable polling site when KOS hates them and they hate KOS. Very odd indeed.) They are arguing both sides argainst the middle.

I would disregard TNR. Don't forget, their subscriber base has been shrinking this year. The subscriber base of other publications, like The Nation and American Prospect are way, way up while TNR is slinking away into obscurity.

[karynnj]

4. I'm not surprised their subscription is shrinking to obscurity

What is their target market? Their previous liberal label means conservatives would never go for it and their neo-con, Bush supporting present should eliminate almost every one else.

So I guess they get the huge Lieberman wing of the party.

[whometense]

5. hahahaha

and welcome to it. All of it. :snark:

[TayTay]

6. BTW, it got burried in the article

but the Kerry fundraising is going well. He was 3rd overall and tops among Dems. 2nd Dem was Hillary Clinton.

[whometense]

7. Nice.

Very nice, in fact. I hadn't clicked over to the article, so I didn't see that. Did he try to explain how that was possible?

Speaking of snark (were we?) I came across this delicious article in the New York Observer this morning about Bill Clinton's Global Initiative dinner September 15 at Nobu. LOTS of observations of the Clintons separately and the political dynamics. You'll love it.

[karynnj]

9. It's actually surprising that Kerry is beating Hillary

She has a 2006 race, he doesn't. (Also, didn't Kerry host 2 fund raisers for Hillary) I didn't go into the article because I was too lazy to register.

[TayTay]

11. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

This is the battle of the Pacs. Kerry got 735,000 (+change), Sen. Clinton got 715,000 (+change). Ms. Clinton has a 'war chest' of 12 million for her Senate campaign. (She can transfer, I think, unused funds to other candidates or something.) I believe Sen. Kerry has $12 milllion or more left over from his last race.

So, they are both doing well.