Watched Tucker Carlson

[babylonsister]

:eyes: with Flavia Colgan on MSNBC just now (10:15p,CT). She's supposed to be the Dem but didn't act it. Who IS she?
They both dissed Kerry pretty bad, as far as thinking he should just bow out gracefully now due to his history from last year, and after his press release today (about being undecided).
Did I mention they suck?

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. Wait a second

did I miss something? What press release about him being undecided. He has always stated that it is to early and he will see after the elections and most probably 2007. The media is trying to push him into an answer and he will not surrender to the whores.

Here is a bio:

Flavia Colgan
Friday, September 05, 2003

Flavia M. Colgan is a political contributor at FOX News Channel.

Prior to joining FNC, Colgan was a Democratic fundraising and political consultant, and campaign manager for both David Wecht for Pennsylvania's superior court and Catherine Baker Knoll for state treasurer.

A graduate of Harvard University, she was recognized by Pittsburgh Magazine, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for her leadership skills and involvement in the community.

Colgan was also a senior advisor to the World Leaders Millennium Symposium Committee, an organization aimed at promoting policy discussions related to the new millennium.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34718,00.html

[wisteria]

4. Ok, Fox News, Tribune Review and Pittsburgh says it all.

Tribune Review is a Repub paper that has had it in for THK and JK for a long time. Actually, they hate all Dems. They print just to discredit anything Democratic. IMO, she is actually a Republican leaning pundit. I have a feeling she comes from a part of the state where I now live and it is very conservative, hooky, and misinformed. Catherine Baker Knoll hasn't been treasurer for several years now and she is now our Lt. Governor only because she balanced out the Philly side of the ticket last election. She is pretty old. Nice lady though.
Interesting that they are calling for him to decline to run so early into all of this. What are they afraid of. I think I will e-mail bow-tie man and tell him Kerry wasn't asking for his opinion.

[karynnj]

6. deleted because wrong

[karynnj]

2. I missed something too

What did Kerry do last year that would make him non-Presidential? He handled everything pretty gracefully - did he fail to praise Bush sufficiently.

[JI7]

3. you have to wonder about these assholes

and their need to go on right wing whore shows to bash Dems. their first priority is themselves and getting their shitty cable news whore tv show.

their lack of discussion of any issues important to the people just shows how out of it they are. their job is to attend parties and events with these right wing whores. what they do behind the scenes is likely much worse than you see on tv.

fuck them all.

[ProSense]

5. This is exactly what I'm talking about

Look at the effing response to an article that had nothing to do with an actual statement from Kerry that he's running. But that's neither here nor there, what the EFF is the problem? What the Eff are they talking about? Kerry kicked Bush's ass last year and though they refuse to acknowledge it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Now we could all sit around and talk about the fact that we don't know whether or not the election was stolen. The fact is the Bush campaign went out of their way to intimidate voters, all the shit with not only the machines, but also the Effing people linked to Diebold, the dirty money crap, these are all linked and all point to a tainted election. These assholes are not fooling me. They know the deal, they know Bush sucks. They don't want Kerry to run because they know their asses would all be exposed for the miserable, lying, cheating little f***s they are.

What gives? One of the most accomplished senators and a terrific candidate for president and they want to talk about him like a dog? What gives? Anybody talking about any of the loser Republican asses that are about to be exposed by Abramoff. Literally a double digit number in a 100-seat Senate will potentially be linked to this political crime of the century, and they want to focus on Kerry?

The ulterior motive in their words is beginning to show up as saliva on their rabid lips, the F***s.

Maybe Effer Carlson remembers that letter I wrote to him calling him a pompous ass for his pissy shill reaction shortly after Katrina hit. His loser ass tried to blame the victims and then changed his tune a little when all the shit hit the fan. Maybe, I'll start writing and calling out his sorry ass every time he opens his useless mouth.

End of rant.

[ProSense]

7. A question?

Is there no way to stop these people from saying some of the vicious things they say? Bush is a complete screw up, and not even he is attacked on the air like JK is. After Katrina, they were trying to defend Michael Brown.

It's one thing when Limpy starts spewing BS about JK, but a lot of average people sit around watching MSNBC and CNN and they hear this. Imagine all the people tuning in with no deep insight into the political goings on. I remember sitting in a doctor's office and listening to some crap being spewed on CNN, I wanted to rip the TV off the wall. People hear this stuff and it's not good. At some point, people begin to believe it. Then it's harder to convince them otherwise.

Kerry can't respond to all these stupid little comments, but they are always being made and always without provocation. I think about all the other members of Congress, not one of them is subject to this level of constant BS. Most of the stuff they say about Kerry is negative. The good things they say are like crumbs, and some never have anything good to say. The fact that they have no justification doesn't stop them, but someone should.

The strange thing is that's the TV. There are a lot of good mentions in articles and online. For example, look at the stuff from CNN online about Kerry's Iraq plan that I posted in another thread. That stuff never makes it to the airwaves. They practically acknowledge that he is the leading Democratic senator and accurately describe his plan.

I'm frustrated.


Here's the linke to the CNN stuff:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=61985&mesg_id=62021

[karynnj]

8. It is tough - when the complaints are so nebulous, he can't

refute them. Or if it's something like nobody likes Kerry, Kerry's boring, Kerry has no charisma etc - we know they're wrong, but he can't say anything about any of this withput having it twisted to look bad. (like the Newseek comments after the election). (I KNOW in my area, Kerry easily had more than 2 or 3 times as many people at his appearance for Corzine than Dean did - Dean's was the Saturday before the election, Kerry's early in September (the first Saturday after school began). )

Remember the last week before the election before the Bin Laden tape came out - when the talking heads looked somewhat incredulous that Kerry looked like he was winning? There was an exchange between Fineman and Matthews, where they were saying something to the effect that it was surprising because Kerry was the least political person to get this far. (I don't remember the exact words as much as there amazement that it was happening.)

I think the fact that they are doing this only to Kerry - and not based on anything he is really doing - does show they haven't ruled him out. (It was interesting that they ignored the "soldiers are terrorists" nonsense - maybe because Kerry was very effectively making the case that US soldiers shouldn't be doing the policing and that 2 years in, the Iraqis certainly could be doing this. I think people got Kerry's point that when you don't know the culture or the language, it has to be a no-win situation. ) To me it looks like they want McCain as President. If McCain gets the nomination, who could stand against him on the Democratic side?

The media is pushing Hillary. Hillary is leaning to the right - but if the Republicans could use John Kerry's "moderate" protesting, wouldn't they use Hillary's anti-war past as well. I'm sure there are comments out there. What was normal in 1969 sounds radical now. They argued that Kerry, who has been consistent was a flip-flopper, it's hard to believe that they will assess Hillary from 1992 on without looking at earlier positions. So, I would imagine that both primaries would be lovefests (from the media). Then it would be straight talking, war hero, independent maverick McCain with his sunny little smile on his round and pink face vs Hillary - who doesn't know who she is. On a personality level, who is warm and who is cold? (Consider what they did in 2004, with a genuinely warm person). I don't think Kerry would have an easy time versus McCain, but, in spite of the 2004 slime, he has a chance of appearing better than McCain.

[ProSense]

10. Good points. Thanks!

That whole bin Laden incident was bizarre. As far a McCain, he has no appeal to me whatsoever, and he often contradicts himself within the same statement.

[karynnj]

12. but he contradicts himself in such a straight talking way

:) He has no appeal for me either - The only thing that keeps me from seeing him as just a very smooth snake is Kerry's respect (or prior respect) for him.

[YvonneCa]

9. Email them...EVERY TIME...

..that's what I've started doing. Wonder if NSA is watching me ???:scared:

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[ProSense]

11. Yeah!

I need to block out some time to do just that.


:hi: