Kerry blames out-of-touch voters for Democrats' midterm image troubles

[Francesca9]

Source: The Hill

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) this week said an uninformed public is largely to blame for the Democrats' problems heading into November's midterms, the Boston Herald reports. “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry said Friday in Boston, according to the Herald. "A lot of the anger today — while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken — is not directed at the right people."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/120939-kerry-blames-out-of-touch-voters-for-dems-image-troubles

---

If Washington is broken as he says, why shouldn't voters be angry?

[Drunken Irishman]

1. They should be angry...at the Republicans.

Republicans' scorched earth policy of the 90s and 00s has killed Washington. They continue to do it even today. They are the Party of No (Ideas) and they should be called on it.

[No Elephants]

96. Besides voting no, what did Republicans have to do with the so-called health care reform bill?

Dodd's bill?

[Drunken Irishman]

189. You think that's why voters are angry?

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

194. Mischaracterize much? Your post implied Republicans were to blame for all

dissatisfaction with D.C. I gave two examples that Republicans did not need to have a single thing to do with. I never said those two were the only possible examples I could give, nor did I ever say all voters are angry about those two things and nothing else.

But, yes, some voters are angry about those two things, among others. You read here often enough to know that.

Edited for typos.

[Drunken Irishman]

197. Most voters are angry about the economy.

That is the number one concern. They are angry about the situation they are in. It's a situation created by Republicans and one where the Republican Party has opposed Democratic economic agendas since Pres. Obama took office.

That's the point.

Americans should be angry at Republicans. It was the Republicans who got us into the recession and it's been the Republicans who have fought this president tooth and nail trying to get us out of it.

[No Elephants]

205. IMO, terms like "economy" and "deficits" are too abstract for many.

I think most voters are angry mostly about things like jobs, foreclosures, having to choose between paying rent and buying medicine or seeeing a doctor--things like that. Also, they are mad about the bailout, which, whether it was necessary or not, certainly could have been handled better. Ditto the stimulus. And, yes, I think some people are angry about hcr, too. And the perception that Washington functions pretty darn well for pols and the rich.

And the seeds of many of those things began with Reagan. However, Clinton continued and extended a number of Reagan policies. His demand for repeal of Glass Steagall on his desk for his signature was not, by any means, unrelated to derivatives and derivatives were not, by any means, unrelated to not, by any means, unrelated to sub prime loans and the housing bubble in general. And Democrats were in control of Congress on and off since 1980, including since 2006. And neither Party has ever made much of an attempt to end gridlock, except to make as sure as they possibly could that Senate rules result in gridlock. And let's not even talk about budgets for defense, Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.


So, you can blame Republicans and only Republicans if you like, but that is not an especially accurarate view of American history in the last 30 years--and it is at least the last thirty years that got us where we are, not only 2000-2008.

[Drunken Irishman]

222. Not saying Democrats didn't push it along...

However, much of what we're seeing was a direct result of Bush's economic policies. Republican economic policies, to be more specific.

Their plans are going to take us back to the 2000s. We've made progress the last two years. We're not nearly there. However, do voters really understand putting Republicans back into office is going to take us back to the mid-00s mindset?

[No Elephants]

239. Actually, you strongly implied, more than once, that Republicans and only Rs were to blame.

Glad to see you've changed your mind to a position more in line with reality.

"However, much of what we're seeing was a direct result of Bush's economic policies."

Disagree. I covered that in my prior post. Apart from his wars, which I grant were significant, Bush only followed in Reagan's footsteps. And, to a degree, so did Clinton. And a lot of what we are seeing now--including the bail out of Wall Street and mortgage foreclosusres-- is the result of derivatives, also covered that in my prior post.

Perhaps all you and I can do is agree to disagree.

Edited for way too many typos!

[dogfacedboy]

261. It goes back way before Bush II. He was just the latest incident. n/t

[blm]

264. you're kinda saying what Kerry said....paying attention to details loses out to slogans

and it's the media-grabbing teabaggers and THEIR 'anger' at DC who WANT Washington to function for the financial elite as they complain about any money being spent to maintain any social safety nets.

[Francesca9]

204. That is exactly the problem - because HCR is very unpopular as it is

[boppers]

251. A bunch of their ideas made it into the final HCR bill.

This is basically what Kerry meant, that people aren't informed, and think in simplistic, bumper-sticker ideas, that things are either black or white.

[Francesca9]

273. No, what happened is that health care costs went UP and not down.

[boppers]

274. The question at hand:

"Besides voting no, what did Republicans have to do with the so-called health care reform bill?"

That's the question I was answering, which is not a question about costs.

[glinda]

2. Well John, then change the Media Ownership issues and political funding.

[karynnj]

7. Kerry co-wrot ea finance campaign bill with Wellstone in the 1990s

and has been very strong on that issue for his entire career - same with arguing for more media diversity.

Nice sarcasm there - and directed at the wrong person.

[glinda]

54. He has to work harder. I know he did that.

[No Elephants]

97. That was before 2004.

[blm]

268. You wanted Dems to NOT run in 2004 under the same campaign finance rules as Republicans?

Can you explain how that would have happened on a national level?

I know that Kerry never used PAC money in his senate campaigns, but, when running for national office, he had little choice. Kerry in the WH would have been the best (and probably last) chance this nation had to get real public financing of campaigns. But...you keep attacking him using RW manufactured outrage, k?

[indimuse]

73. Agreed!

;)

[pocoloco]

3. Kerry knows all about "out of touch"!

And how to fuck off an election!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[ixion]

75. Oh, you mean like how he responded so rapidly to the 'swift-boat' innuendo that

pretty much cost him the election. Yeah, that was pretty effective. :eyes:

[Dr.Phool]

89. His next career will be as a Posturpedic salesman.

[karynnj]

170. Nice way to treat a genuine American Democratic hero

[blm]

265. yeah...IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning reports were boring...unlike the gripping Starr Report

that was far more entertaining for this nation, eh?

[txlibdem]

95. Kerry is out of touch with reality

He threw the election in '04 because the Dems didn't want to "own" the Iraq war and wanted "W" to have to take the responsibility to get us out of it. Little did they know...

As for his comment that it's us voters who are the problem... he is dead wrong and he damn well knows it.

There would be no Democratic apathy if they had DONE THEIR GODDAMN JOBS and brought FDR-like policies back. Instead they concentrated on "saving the banks" and "saving the auto corps" and "saving the state budgets" and... What they never gave a single solitary f'king thought about was the millions of Americans losing their life savings, losing their homes, losing their livelihoods.

Kerry is another dumbass fanatic of the Trickle Down Religion.

[No Elephants]

98. I don't think he threw 2004. I think he's wanted to be President since JFK.

And Democrats have seldom been inclined to re-nominate a Democratic politician who has already lost a Presidential election.

[ixion]

122. Then why did he take so long to respond to the idiotic 'swift boat' ads?

despite the fact that because it ran for weeks w/o a response it pretty much nixed his chances for that spot.

[No Elephants]

125. You would have to ask him and Shrum.

[karynnj]

175. He responded immediately - the media did not cover much of the response

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

[blm]

270. That's a false claim. Kerry countered swifts...and when he used a planned speech to attack them

further, every news network refused to broadcast his speech - few even reported the speech occurred, and even though it was in front of the Firefighters Convention. Could it be because he also attacked Bush and challenged him to publicly debate their service instead of hiding behind the lies of the swifts?

Try reading the Research Forum. There is plenty of REAL info on the swifts timeline. All you are doing in repeating the corporate media narrative is letting corporate media continue to get away with their lies.

[karynnj]

174. You are completely wrong on nearly every point - and need to get over the 2004 primaries won by the

most liberal of the viable candidates.

1) Kerry did not "throw" the election - it was partially because of teh Iraq War that he was willing to run himself ragged after cancer treatments in 2003. He very much wanted to change the foreign policy there. You forget that he led on Kerry/Feingold - variations of which became what the Democrats ran on in 2008.

2) Kerry did not say the voters were the problem - the Boston Herald did. He said that they were angry - which they are - and he said that they did not have the facts on what Obama's policies - which is true. There are many polls that show the individual things in the HCR plan are popular, yet the plan is aggregate is not. The Republicans in their plan actually include many of things actually in the bill. In 2008, it was Kerry's affordable housing fund that was included in the banking bill to help provide needed subsidized rental housing. This was something he was the lead sponsor on for a decade.

3) If you followed any of the Congressional actions on the stimulus bill and other bills, you would have seen Kerry as one of the strongest advocates for the types of legislation that is FDR like - and he referenced FDR. The high speed rail pieces came from legislation he wrote in 2008. He also was (with Durbin) the advocate for getting money to the states to preserve state jobs for firemen, police and teachers - which has a secondary effect helping the small businesses they patronize and the neighborhoods.

Kerry is among the most liberal members of the Senate and has always been actively against the Reagan trickle down economic theory - and there are Senate speeches and public statements he has made for over two decades on this.

[txlibdem]

192. I never said he hasn't done some good things lately

I'm glad you were able to find a couple of bills he worked on. I couldn't remember a single one off the top of my head but that is neither here nor there. I was talking about the 2004 election campaign and what I saw, from my perspective, was that he had no "fire in his belly" to win.

All I saw in response to the Swift-boating ads was some calmly stated rebuttal. He has the Heinz fortune behind him. Why didn't he buy commercial time or take out full page newspaper ads to attack the liars behind this? Every time the opposition brought out 3 attacks against him he would flatly state, in complete deadpan, what was wrong with ONE of the three. He never went on the attack. He never put up a fight.

And his face during his concession speech looked perfectly ok with the outcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJjOCYmi-A

How do you lose to this empty-headed lummox?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-ac6pstmM&feature=related

[karynnj]

218. His face looked "perfectly ok"?

Kerry is a mature, very disciplined, well mannered man, who still was near tears at the part of the speech when he spoke of the people speaking to him in the campaign and how there were so many things that he could have done, but now couldn't. At one point, when he spoke of Teresa, it looked as though she wiped a tear from his face. I assume you also did not see the picture of his two wonderful daughters in the audience.

Kerry was more emotional than Gore was when he conceded on election night and than McCain, Dole or GHWB was.

[txlibdem]

193. MadTV summed up Kerry's flip-floppy, wishy-washy, half-hearted attempt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_PV9AbFX0&p=560DD137FE1322F0&playnext=1&index=14

[karynnj]

217. Mad TV is a not serious analysis - the fact of the matter is that

Kerry was out there working heart and soul for a year and a half, his debates were outstanding and his platform was so good that none of the 2008 candidates were far from it - some even nearly using his words - especiually on terrorism, which by mid 2006, even George Will agreed with and alternative energy/environment.

As to flip flopping, Kerry had just explained in detail voting for the bill that would have raised taxes on the wealthy to pay for the wars and voting against the bill that added it to debt. He had said at the time - on the floor of the Senate - that the latter vote was a protest vote over the irresponsible way it was not funded. Two different votes, two different results - not a flip flop. In addition, you could read Kerry's 1966 foreign policy speech at Yale and see the root of his current foreign policy ideas. It is extremely rare for someone to have that level of both thoughtfulness and consistency over more than 40 years! On nearly any issue I've looked at - and they are many, I have seen a constant looking for better ideas, but a consistency to goals and values. The only reason many people see "flip flops" is that many need to define everything as Yes/No - when, in fact, there are many points in between.

[karynnj]

169. As an Obama surrogate

The fact is that he responded FASTER and with more completeness to the SBVT than Bill Clinton did to anything via his vaunted "war room".

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards, who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - Clinton conceded that earlier statements were not completely true and parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

That Democrats blame Kerry for the fact that the media allowed a character assassination is in large part a result of Kerry not ruling out a second run - and the Clinton people sickeningly making this argument - even though Bill Clinton was one who advised the Kerry team not to get sucked into responding on Vietnam. They had a bit of a vested interest in not having him run in 2008. This was a second wave of assaults on Kerry.

[Moonbat2]

77. You are right

He is an everyday working mans senator

[ixion]

124. millionaires cannot be working men's representatives

the disconnect is far too great.

[No Elephants]

99. Has Kerry denied saying what the Herald quoted him as saying?

If the quote is correct, who owns the Herald seems like a straw man in this instance. The OP is a Hill story quoting what Kerry said by using the Herald for a quote; and people on this thread are discussing what Kerry is quoted as having said, not however the Herald may (or may not) spun its story.

[ProSense]

116. Exactly why

should he deny saying this:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

He needs to keep repeating it. It's spot on.

[No Elephants]

123. I never said he (should or shouldn't) deny it. Try reading posts in context. My post was a reply

to karynnj's implication (and later, yours) that Murdoch's Herald is to blame for posters' anger at Kerry, rather than what he said. Only if the Herald misquoted him would that be so. Hence my questions about whether the Herald had misquoted him.

Good grief. I thought that was obvious.

[karynnj]

245. The TITLE of the article misquotes Kerry - and yes I know there are no quotes there

[Francesca9]

257. I don't understand what you mean

[blm]

267. Do YOU deny that media's hyped up coverage of teabagger slogans are misdirecting anger?

I easily got what Kerry is saying...but, the spin is directed at the low-information voter who would latch onto the manufactured 'outrage' contained in the article.

Even here at DU.

[No Elephants]

103. pocoloco said nothing about Obama's election. Far more likely pocoloco meant 2004.

[Mickeyc1004]

179. I agree.

....and you have to wonder how this crapola keeps ending up on Democratic Underground, sometimes I can't tell the difference between here and free republic.

People commonly use right wing papers, that are owned by Murdoch like the Wall street Journal which is nothing, but rubbish these days.

[sendero]

226. +1

Kerry is part of the problem. When you have no passion in your message nobody listens. Kerry has the passion of a dead fish and he lost an election to an utter moron who was polling negative 3 weeks later.

The last thing the Dems need is more Kerrys.

[ProSense]

227. Well, that's your opinion and

it doesn't remotely reflect reality.

In fact, when Kerry endorsed Obama, the detractors were sure it meant nothing. Kerry was Obama's most effective surrogate.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

230. Sounds like you don't really like him.

Still, your opinion is far from reality.

Oh, btw, Kerry won his last election with 70 percent of the vote.

[blm]

266. Kerry did his job, McAuliffe's DNC did NOT, and big-name Dem 'leaders' sided with Bush over Kerry.

Blaming it all on Kerry is fun, though, for the simple-minded.

[pscot]

4. The quality of the followership is most definitely

not what it used to be.

[emilyg]

13. The quality of the leaders is

not what it used to be.

[karynnj]

17. President Obama is an exceptional leader

The fact is that he and the Congressional Democrats have achieved far more Democratic agenda items than your icon and her huband did when he was President. Senator Kerry has been an exceptional public servant who has - as a Senator - done a very good job - and has been exceptionally successful with personal diplomacy at the request of Obama, with the agreement of your icon.

[KakistocracyHater]

36. you wish

*

[karynnj]

38. Well - one of them passed a health care bill - the other failed

The fact is that Obama helped the economy turn - it needs to get a lote better - but at least it is not getting worse. Both the Banking bill and the HCR bill are important Democratic legislation.

If your comment is on Kerry - the fact are the facts - and I cane defend them.

[KakistocracyHater]

44. you talk of things that are not even legally in effect yet, try waiting to see

if all the pretty words really come true. & since you mentioned Kerry: what happened on 2004 when he continually claimed he had "Lawyers lined up to challenge any voting irregularities"? Hmnn? He folded like a house of cards within hours of the "cinderella effect".

[karynnj]

164. Kerry did challenge many irregularities in the early voting

The problem in Ohio - as the op-ed written by Cam Kerry explained is that though there was provable voter suppression and minor irregularities, there was no way to show that Kerry got more legally cast votes than Bush. The Republicans main way to cut the Kerry totals in Democratic strongholds was to give them an inadequate number of voting machines. It is completely obvious that Kerry lost a substantial number of votes because people could not wait the 4 hours or more in the rain to cast votes. The problem is that you can't count votes never cast. (RFK jr did a great job estimating how many votes were lost by people who came out to vote and abandoned the effort - nice statistical analysis, but totally not admissible in court.)

The fact is that Jennifer Brunner replaced Blackwell over 3 years ago and there is no proof - admissible in a court of law that would have proven that of the votes cast, Kerry received the majority. That was what was needed - and needed within about two months after the election - for Kerry to win a challenge of the electors. Proving that there was voter suppression would not sufficed. Kerry was an outstanding prosecutor and he had all the Democratic party's legal experts, who pushed Gore to rescind his concession and fight the 2000 race were all in agreement that there were not enough legitimately cast votes for Kerry to continue to fight. Part of the reason that people continued to believe that there was something that could have been done was John Edwards' dishonest comments to just the left - never the main stream media that "he would have fought" - even though he never said what he would have based a case on or explained why he did not do so no matter what Kerry did. His name was on the ballot so he would have had standing. (The fact is Teresa and John Kerry spoke out in 2005 on voter suppression and irregularities (Teresa even spoke of the potential for cheating with hackable machines) - the Edwards didn't - neither said anything until 2006.)

As to Obama's healthcare plan, there is a whole list of important provisions that took affect last week. Months ago, I saw the power point explanation of how it impacts the plan of the company my husband works for. These things are real and they are in affect - and will be obvious as the new plan year starts for many companies. Not to mention the Banking reform bill also had things that have taken affect - and they put in place new regulations to replace those that were removed in the 1990s.

[No Elephants]

92. Did the Clintons begin their process by meeting with health insurers, big PHRMA, etc.?

In fairness to the Clintons (not my heros), many Presidents since Ted Roosevelt, including Nixon, wanted a health care plan for all Americans. None succeeded until: (1)age was making boomers too expensive for health insurers AND boomers, healthy or not, were aging into Medicare; (2) a plan was proposed with mandates, including for the young and healthy, but no public options OR significant cost controls, expanded Medicaid and expanded drug coverage--which some consider a pre-emptive bailout of several health-related industries--; (3) a Democrat in the WH (and the VP slot, if needed), an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and sixty Democrats in the Senate--enough for reconciliation despite stubborn DINOS; and (4) Ted Kennedy did not kill it for political reasons, as he had with Nixon (ostensibly on behalf of Democratic administrations, in general) and Carter (on behalf, apparently of his own Presidential hopes).

IOW, one Democrat's idea of great leadership may well be another Democrat's idea of, well, let's call it a particular confluence of circumstances that has never occurred before.

[karynnj]

153. The Clintons started their plan with some

rigid ideas that were immediately unacceptable to the entire FINANCE committee, including my Senator, Bill Bradley, who worked on it for years. As to mandates, Hillary and Edwards argued FOR them. Obama argued that a plan could not pass with them - but that changed when the business roundtable argued both in favor of mandates and universal healthcare. The first hint of that was Ivan Seidenberg's testimony before the Finance committee in fall 2008. (He's CEO of Verizon and was then the chair of Business Roundtable.)

The Clinton plan had no public option either. Obama's plan does have significant cost controls - including the same technique that was used in MA - that has cut the costs of plans - there were no cost controls in the Clinton plan. Clinton HAD a Democratic President and VP. Additionally, he had 58 Democrats in the Senate- and Chaffee and Specter, to name two were among the Republicans. The Republicans in the 1993 House and Senate were not as extreme as those Obama faced.

Your attack on Kennedy is also completely uncalled for. The fact is that Kennedy did not "stop" Nixon's plan - the quote, which is itself in dispute, does not even say that. It says that he should have worked with Nixon to get it. There is a huge difference between not actively fighting for something and being against it. The supposed regret was not doing the former, throwing whatever weight his name had behind it. Kennedy did NOTHING to hurt the Clintons passing a healthcare plan. Hillary's book says her plan was not even officially voted on as it was dead when not even one member of the Finance Committee was willing to vote for it - and Ted Kennedy was never on that committee.

As to the Carter years, the fact is that there were people in the media and the party who pushed for Kennedy to run against Carter - because they were utterly disillusioned with Carter. It would have been better for the party had Kennedy rejected the idea. However, Carter likely still would have lost. His health care plans - or actually plans - were not even given much support by CARTER. It is hard to recall how much discontent there was among Democrats, not just on the left with Carter. He was outstanding on conservation and alternative energy and he tried to include morality as part of foreign policy - thing I admire in him, as I do in John kerry. However, Carter is stretching reality in arguing that Kennedy killed his healthcare plan. (Kennedy did not head the HELP committee then and was not a power in the Senate yet - something angrily noted in Jody Powell's 1984 book.

Great leadership rarely can fairly be assessed while it is happening. the facts are that ANY President coming in in 2009 would have faced the kind of cataclysmic issues that would have made him/her a failure OR if he/she succeeded a great President. That reality is why the Republicans have tried to prevent anything. Obama has/had the potential to be an FDR level of President. In retrospect, there was not the intense grassroots energy in the Clinton years to make radical changes. What he did do was to squander much of the influence he could have had - especially considering his brilliance. He also was distracted enough (or didn't see the dangers) in the fundamental economic changes that he signed off on. My opinion of Clinton was higher when he was in office than it is now. Time will tell how he actually will be considered. However, I think a 2008 comment by a Clinton ally that he was willing to harm his reputation (with the early 2008 attacks on Obama) because he was willing to gamble that his (and Hillary's) reputation would be redeemed by things they could do if she won.

[No Elephants]

207. "Great leadership rarely can fairly be assessed while it is happening." I don't know about "rarely'

People in his time got Washington was a great leader. Ditto Roosevelt. Ditto Lincoln, and LBJ, bearing in mind that assessing great leadership does not mean either unanimous approval or approval of every agenda item. For instance, all would probably say that LBJ, whether in Congress or in the WH had an amazing ability to get things done, despite a Party deeply divided six ways to Sunday. While recognizing that, some would fault him for his liberal agenda, while liberals would faulc him for Vietnam. JFK, at the very least for his space exploration leadership.

On the other hand, I've heard and seen Republicans claim that history will vindicate Dummya and, in 100 years, he will be on everyone's list of ten greatest Presidents. I always have to smile to myself at statements like that, whether made by them or by you.


But, we both digress. I stand by my post about one person's great leadership being another person's, um, confluence of events and also why so-called health reform passed now and not under prior Presidents. Yes, there were other reasons, including resentment of how the Clintons proceeded, but I believe I hit the major ones, especially Baby Boomers and a willingness to give Big Health--insurers, providers, drug companies--quite a lot.

[karynnj]

246. There was absolutely not a common feeling that LBJ was a great

President at the time that he was President. I loved JFK, but there was not a view that he was a great President when he was in office - and setting a goal to go to the moon was not even accepted by eveyone. Neither of us were alive when any of the other Presidents mentioned were President.

[Zhade]

236. Health INSURANCE bill -- not health care. Even your icon admitted that much.

If he's "exceptional", your standards are far too low.

[ProSense]

238. "If he's "exceptional", your standards are far too low."

It's health care reform.

Your opinions aren't facts.

[ixion]

76. well, not really.

I don't see where he has done anything even remotely approaching "exceptional." His performance has been poor to mediocre, at best.

[No Elephants]

102. Emily g said nothing about Obama. A Party has one official head, but many leaders.

[karynnj]

165. True she did not say Obama - but if she did not intend to include him,

as the by far most important Democratic leader, she would have done so explicitly.

[No Elephants]

212. You can know exactly what she would have done if she were not referring to Obama?

Impressive.

(BTW, you responded as though you thought she meant Obama and only Obama, but nice save, with "include.")

Personally, I thought she meant Kerry, since this thread is about him, but that was only my first impression. I would never presume to debate it, though, since neither of us can read minds.

[emilyg]

221. Did I mention Obama? Interesting

how you jumped in to defend him. Exceptional.

[No Elephants]

101. +1

[treestar]

155. The leaders are picked by a vote!

They are the ones the voters chose.

[karynnj]

5. He's not saying they shouldn't be - he said it is directed at the wrong people

Imagine things like the small business bill being passed 6 months earlier - or TANF, which helps some of the poorest people extended immediately.

[bullimiami]

6. blame the voters. thats a sure way to win.

maybe they should have delivered some real left of center policy instead of pandering so hard to assholes who will never like you or vote for you.

[karynnj]

10. Kerry is about the 6th most liberal person in the Senate

The fact is that they can not get enough votes for left of center votes. Kerry is not "blaming" the voter - his comments are true and suggest that the solution is getting the truth out.

Ask yourself why the MURDOCH owned paper is attacking John Kerry - The reason is that he is one of the more able Democrats in making the Democratic case. Here's Murdoch's gosl - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x454875

[No Elephants]

93. Which may say more about the nature of the Senate and the success of the DLC types

in taking over our Party than it says about anything else.

[wisteria]

20. He isn't blaming voters for anything. He is stating there is a need for more dialog and better

understanding. Many of these angry voters are concerned about things they believe to be true because they have not been explained well enough, or at all by the media, and by some Democrats. Many people are being misinformed and lied too and they do not trust any media-just people like Palin and Beck to give them their news.
I highly doubt that not delivering real left to center policy is what has most of these Americans upset.

[No Elephants]

240. He is not blaming voters for being inattentive and therefore being influenced by a slogan,

rather than by the truth?

He is not blaming voters for mis-directing their anger? He's merely stating a need for more dialog?

Maybe I'd better look at that quote again: Here it is:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry said Friday in Boston, according to the Herald. "A lot of the anger today — while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken — is not directed at the right people."

Still seeing him blaming voters for being inattentive and therefore being influenced by a slogan, rather than by the truth. Still NOT seeing where he says even some Democrats the media should explain things more or better or dialog more. (What would be the point of more explanation if people are inattentive anyway?)

"I highly doubt that not delivering real left to center policy is what has most of these Americans upset."

I take it you mean you doubt people are upset because Democrats did not delivery policies that are left of center (rather than center right, ala Clinton).

In a worse economy than this, FDR became revered, almost like a demi-god, for creating jobs programs and other policies that were left for that time, like expanding the reach of congress beyond anything theretoore dreamed of.

I posted upthread: "I think most voters are angry mostly about things like jobs, foreclosures, having to choose between paying rent and buying medicine or seeeing a doctor--things like that. Also, they are mad about the bailout, which, whether it was necessary or not, certainly could have been handled better. Ditto the stimulus. And, yes, I think some people are angry about hcr, too. And the perception that Washington functions pretty darn well for pols and the rich."

All those are leftie issues.

[KakistocracyHater]

61. yes, that would be an intelligent start............

but they have other priorities, it seems

[treestar]

158. Of course the voters are to blame if you don't like the leaders!

The leaders are picked by the voters in things called elections!

If a voter votes R or not at all because the Ds are not liberal enough, that voter deserves what he or she gets!

[No Elephants]

214. I don't know of anyone who ever voted R because D's were not liberal enough.

I very much doubt you do. (And I mean know IRL, not message board bs.)

I know Ds who voted R for other reasons; and I know folk of many Parties who voted Green, Democratic Socialist, etc. bc they thought Ds were not liberal enough, but no one I know of no one who ever voted R bc Ds were not liberal enough.

Agree on not voting at all, though.

[rpannier]

8. Kerry strikes again

Kind of like when he tried to refute Durbin saying the banking industry owned Congress
There was Kerry to say he disagreed

[karynnj]

12. Link please?

Kerry has said things similar to Durbin's comments - often - including on the floor of the Senate this week.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=598830850

[rpannier]

55. From 2009

A yes vote, John Kerry (D-Mass.), also weighed in: "They don't own me and I'm in the Senate. I think it's unfortunate. I don't know what the rationale is behind people's votes. I don't know what motivates -- some senators don't like changing of a contract. Some senators don't like to have courts have the power. There are different reasons."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/in-their-own-words-why-de_n_194589.html

bottom of the article

[No Elephants]

82. What happens after a poster provides a requested link is telling, as to

the poster who requested the link.

[Mass]

105. That somebody from MA would use the word of a GOP propangandist to blame

a decent Democratic senator is very telling too.

Some here may not know who Hillary Chabot is, you dont have this excuse or at least should not.

[No Elephants]

109. Actually, I don't know Hillary Chabot and have no clue what you're referring to.

And exactly which Senator have I "blamed" for exactly what on this thread? Maybe you "should" get yourself better reading comprehension skills instead of worrying about who and what I supposedly "should" know.

Edited to add "comprehension" and "ly."

[Mass]

126. You're right. You have been way too busy attacking anybody defending Kerry

and defending anybody attacking Kerry, generally by pointless remarks. Though you make it clear in several places that you blame Kerry for not being who you thought he was in the 1970s.

So, what in the Kerry quote was wrong? If nothing was, why are you around knocking down people who just say nothing was wrong. IMHO, what is wrong is the spin given by the Herald, that Kerry was thinking voters are stupid.

My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. As for your cluelessness concerning the Herald piece in the OP, it makes Kerry's point that voters don' t have the time to get informed. You clearly don't .

[No Elephants]

128. also false. I have not attacked a single poster on this thread. Not a one.

I've been simply responded to posts. So, yeah, work on your reading comp. skills. (You are not the best judge of how good your own skills are.) Here's an exercise you can try: Find one thing I posted on this thread that is false.

Btw, I defended Kerry, too, against a claim that he purposely lost the 2004 election. Guess you missed that. So, again, yeah, work on those skills.

ETA: correction. I should have said I have not attacked any poster other than you. You were the exoeption bc your post tc me WAS an unprovoked personal attack, devoid of substance and, by your own later admission, completely false. 0 for 3. And on top of all that, you make it so darn easy.

[Mass]

132. LOL.

1/ I was answering to a post where you were attacking somebody. I assume you were informed about the Boston media. Apparently, I was mistaken. My apologies.

2/ You quoted somewhere that people in this thread were responding to what Kerry said. Where did he say " out of touch", which is what many posters are criticizing him for? So, I guess you were wrong there.

And now, good bye.

[No Elephants]

188. Wrong. At least you’re consistent!

“1/ I was answering to a post where you were attacking somebody.....”


Um, no. You answered a post where I made an observation about message board posters generally. It is an observation I've made before, on other threads.

I was not attacking either of the posters who requested a link. If I were, I would have posted directly to them, so that they’d be sure to see it and have a chance to reply if they wished.

You need to parse the difference between insulting a poster and making an observation about of a type of posting behavior engaged in by many, many posters. And you also need to ponder the difference between disagreeing with some or all of a post and an attack on the poster who made the post.

More significantly, you’re being disingenuous. You falsely claimed that I’d been “too busy attacking anybody defending Kerry.” Yet, you could point only to a single post out of many I’ve made on this thread, and even that one post is about a behavior anyway, not on personal attack on any person.

“I assume you were informed about the Boston media. Apparently, I was mistaken. My apologies.”

LOL, not knowing one Boston right winger means I don’t know any Boston media? Besides, point was, you had falsely claimed that I had used Chabot’s remarks to attack Kerry, when, as you later admitted, I had not attacked him at all. Please stop being deceptive, even if it does seem to you to be your only way to save face in this exchange. It only makes you look worse.

“2/ You quoted somewhere that people in this thread were responding to what Kerry said. Where did he say " out of touch", which is what many posters are criticizing him for? So, I guess you were wrong there.”

Um, he said “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention...” “Out of touch.” Inattentive. Very similar sentiments. Either way, he’s saying voters are the problem, not what {D.C.} Democrats have or have not done. That was what posters were reacting to negatively. Whether he said “inattentive.” versus “out of touch” was not their issue. Moreover my saying that posters were reacting to what he said was in the context of was responding to a post saying ownership of the Herald was to blame for D.U. posters’ reactions on a thread where the O.P. article was from the Hill. (See Reply 99.)

Oh, and as far as my allegedly making it “clear in several places that I “blame” Kerry for not being who I thought he was in the 1970’s, again, try reading comp. My saying that Kerry changed does not imply he fooled me about who he was to begin with. It also does not blame him for changing, any more than saying “the sun did not come out today,” blames the sun for having been obscured by clouds. People have a right to change—and I have a right to prefer them one way or another. Either way, “blame” is inappropriate.

But, hey, out of maybe 20 posts, give or take, you found only one alleged error—and you were off the mark on that one. So, I guess I should be thanking you for the compliment, even though you did not intend to compliment me. Cool beans.

[Mass]

206. Sigh. Whatever. You clearly have more time to lose than I have.

So long. I am more interested by getting Deval Patrick reelected than by continuing an idle conversation with you.

[No Elephants]

215. LOL, how many times are you going to say bye (and while you're so busy working for Patrick, too)?

[Zhade]

237. No, you lost the argument and are backing off. As you should.

You accused NE of something that didn't happen, and you don't even have the common decency to admit your error.

[karynnj]

177. Kerry voted with Durbin

Kerry's comments don't do what you say they do. The only thing he is saying here is that he was personally unwilling to say - with no knowledge - what the motives of other people were.

This is actually decent behavior on Kerry's part.

[No Elephants]

220. Really?

rpannier: Kind of like when he tried to refute Durbin saying the banking industry owned Congress
There was Kerry to say he disagreed.

rpannier:
A yes vote, John Kerry (D-Mass.), also weighed in: "They don't own me and I'm in the Senate. I think it's unfortunate. I don't know what the rationale is behind people's votes. I don't know what motivates -- some senators don't like changing of a contract. Some senators don't like to have courts have the power. There are different reasons."

Karynnj: Kerry's comments don't do what you say they do. The only thing he is saying here is that he was personally unwilling to say - with no knowledge - what the motives of other people were.

This is actually decent behavior on Kerry's part."



Is your position really that Kerry was not attempting to disagree with or take away from Durbin's claim in any way or to any degree? If so, that is a matter of your interpretation of his words.

Also, please note my bolding. Kerry was, with no knowledge, quite willing to speculate about his colleagues' motives might have been. He could simply have said, "They don't own me. I cannot speculate about the motives of 99 other Senators. " Instead, he gave possible reasons that provided cover. He just did not include the possiblility of something other than a legitimate motive.

I'm not saying that the banking industry owns Kerry, the Senate's richest Senator, or that it owns most Senators. Just saying I think rpannier proved his or her point.

[rpannier]

229. He provides reasons why other senators may have voted no

He did not agree with Durbin and gave reasons why senators voted with banking institutions and not for the good of the public

He did disagree with Durbin. You can place any spin on it you want, but he says, "...I don't know what the rationale is behind people's votes. I don't know what motivates -- some senators don't like changing of a contract. Some senators don't like to have courts have the power. There are different reasons." he is disagreeing with Durbin and it sucks that he did so.

[karynnj]

247. I concede that you are right in saying that Kerry disagreed with Durbin's frustrated comment

However, I would bet if pushed - Durbin would retreat to something like Kerry said. The fact is that Kerry, who was likely asked to comment on Durbin's comment - that he already would have heard - gave a reasonable response. Kerry is correct in not being willing to call everyone voting in the opposite direction "bought by the banks".

Kerry's comments on the influence bought by money are far more nuanced and it is done without accusing his peers of breaking the law - which quid por quo is - without proof.

[wisteria]

21. Huh? I don't recall any of what you claim. Please provide proof .

Otherwise, your claims are false.

[rpannier]

56. From 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/in-their-own-words-why-de_n_194589.html

A yes vote, John Kerry (D-Mass.), also weighed in: "They don't own me and I'm in the Senate. I think it's unfortunate. I don't know what the rationale is behind people's votes. I don't know what motivates -- some senators don't like changing of a contract. Some senators don't like to have courts have the power. There are different reasons."

[karynnj]

181. You would wish that Senator Kerry would disparage his colleagues

by assigning motives that he doesn't know are true? As he said - referring to that vote - is that there could be other reasons - and he lists one. Kerry himself was one of the people who spoke in favor of Durbin's bill.

[ShamelessHussy]

11. I blame out-of-touch politicians

i think the people are, and have been very clear, we expect real reform.

washington is broken because corporations have captured it, and now represents the ruling class exclusively, profit over people, it's as simple as that.

until we have more leaders who acknowledge that fact, we will have more of the same BS.

don't expect change to come from the top, it will only, and always has, come from weTHEpeople, out in the streets fighting for it.

[bluedigger]

14. Is it not the duty of the Democratic leadership

to deliver a clear and concise message?

Who's fault would that be, John?

[karynnj]

19. The media is assisting the Republicans in distorting the message

It is very clear that President Obama - and the rest of the Democrats - are trying to correct the messages that people have received. Kerry HAS used every opportunity he has had to explain clearly the various issues.

It is amazing how many anti Kerry people seem to be on a first name basis with him in their atatcks - something I have NEVER seen towards any other Democrat.

Not to mention Obama is the President - he has a cabinet - Reid is Majority Leader - Pelosi is Speaker. Kerry has a platform as Chair of SFRC, but that is for foreign policy.

[wisteria]

32. Exactly. One example is Health Care reform.

I believe something like 40% of the public still things there are death panels in the bill. Now, we know who started this one and we know who all the media outlet were that repeated this lie.

[mazzarro]

39. A Liberal Counterpart To Faux News Is Needed

Democratic leaders are so slow to react that it pains the soul to watch them as they twist and turn to placate rethuglicans in every way imaginable. Why is it not clear to the Democratic leaders by now that they need to persuade some of the ubber-rich liberals to buyout and own some news media in order to counter the rethugs and Faux News as well as other so-called conservative media - beats my imagination.

Kerry and the rest of the Democratic and liberal politicians that have access to the very wealthy liberals need to see the urgency of owning some effective news media. Unless the so called ubber-rich liberals are liberals in name only and do care much more for their money than they pretend to be - which will not surprised at all.

[wisteria]

52. We do need to be able to counter the RW BS as soon as it is being spun.

They have a neatly thread network that gets out their twisted messages in no time at all. And, it becomes the first thing many news outlets and even ordinary people see,hear about and read.

[RBInMaine]

80. We do have MSNBC and some radio, but yes, the R's have INVESTED in media MUCH more than our side.

[No Elephants]

84. "We" do not have MSNBC. It is Republican owned and managed. It

simply has a programming policy of following polls.

Prior to Olberman, it had all Republican hosts, from Imus in the Morning, to Dennis Miller at night--and Chris Matthews was saying things like "I voted for Bush twice" and "I'm a lot more conservative than people think I am."

As Bushco and Republicans generally went down in the polls, MSNBC hired Olberman, then a few years later, Maddow. Not very long after Maddow, they hired Schultz. And Matthews shifted his tune. Apart from those three and swinger Matthews, all the rest of the line up Republican, from Joe Scarborough (with a pretense at first that Mika was there for balance), to Chuck Todd, to Alan Greenspan's wife, to Dylan Ratigan (a transplant from CNBC who calls himself Libertarian). Not to mention that Republican racist and xenophope, Pat Buchanan, shows up on all shows all day long for his "expertise."

IMO, MSNBC, by seeming (for now) to be either pro-Democratic or, at worst, "objective," while slanting Republican most of its programming day, is more dangerous than Fox, which is at least up front about favoring Republicans.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[RBInMaine]

83. DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC yawn....snooooooooooze....bla bla bla. Try another meme.

[No Elephants]

86. The Kerry/DLC "meme" is 100% accurate.

The liberal John Kerry of the liberal 1970's is not the DLC John Kerry of today.


"During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left"<12>. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

"2004 Presidential primary
In May 2003, as the Democratic primary of the 2004 presidential campaign was starting to pick up, the organization voiced concern that the Democratic contenders might be taking positions too far left of the mainstream general electorate. Early front-runner Howard Dean, who attracted popular support due in large part to his anti-war views despite his reputation as a centrist governor of Vermont, was specifically criticized by DLC founder and CEO Al From. From's criticism of Dean was also likely due to the former governor's opposition to the Iraq War, which most party centrists, including From, endorsed. Dean's claim to hail "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (a phrase originally used by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota) has been interpreted by some as subtle criticism of the DLC and the New Democrats in general. Indeed, Dean once described the DLC as the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party." <23> The DLC countered that Dean represented the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."

Senator John Kerry won the Democratic primary and chose primary contender Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Both Senators are members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, and the DLC anticipated that they would win the general election. In a March 3, 2004 dispatch, they suggested voters would appreciate Kerry's centrist viewpoints, imagining voters to say "If this is a waffle, bring on the syrup." <24>" Id.

See also (among many others):

"Sean Donahue wrote in 2004:

Most of the major contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign are corporations or employees of corporations that have ties to a network of organizations dedicated to moving the Democratic Party to the right. These organizations, which include the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, and the Progressive Policy Institute, are dedicated to pursuing a policy agenda that includes support for high levels of military spending and an aggressive role for the U.S. military around the world. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.
Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html

"The media coverage of its attacks, plus Dean's own implosion, breathed temporary life into the DLC, as it assumed a large role in John Kerry's policy shop. As the Anybody But Bush movement mobilized, the DLC quietly pushed Kerry rightward, dubbing him "a pragmatic centrist in the Clinton mode." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

[ProSense]

118. BS

Despite some people's attempt to link Kerry with the DLC, he has never supported any DLC positions (throw in Ashcroft, Roberts (Feingold voted for them) and a slew of other Bush cronies).

[No Elephants]

129. Right back at your post. Your chart is selective and also does not address

what was raised in any of the links I posted.

[ProSense]

130. Really? Want me to address your point?

"2004 Presidential primary
In May 2003, as the Democratic primary of the 2004 presidential campaign was starting to pick up, the organization voiced concern that the Democratic contenders might be taking positions too far left of the mainstream general electorate. Early front-runner Howard Dean, who attracted popular support due in large part to his anti-war views despite his reputation as a centrist governor of Vermont, was specifically criticized by DLC founder and CEO Al From. From's criticism of Dean was also likely due to the former governor's opposition to the Iraq War, which most party centrists, including From, endorsed. Dean's claim to hail "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (a phrase originally used by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota) has been interpreted by some as subtle criticism of the DLC and the New Democrats in general. Indeed, Dean once described the DLC as the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party." <23> The DLC countered that Dean represented the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."

I love it when people try to make Dean, a centrist, out to be progressive.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

link

Contrast:

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said.

<...>

"I don't need any lessons in patriotism or in caring for America," Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, told Democrats at a meet-the-candidates dinner in Atlanta. "We're fighting for the rights of Americans…I speak out for America, not for politics."

link

Wellstone Democrat? Kerry voted against DOMA, something Wellstone didn't do. Kerry was the very first champion of serious campaign finance reform

I'm a Kerry Democrat.

[No Elephants]

135. Yes, I'd love for you to address the points in my links. Why on earth didn't you?

"I love it when people try to make Dean, a centrist, out to be progressive."

Not the point of the quote AT All. Not even close. Try again.

And, while you're at it, hit the info in the other two links I posted.

"I'm a Kerry Democrat." And? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I'm a Democrat, period. I don't idolize any individuals, though.


As to Kerry, I've voted for Kerry for years, in every primary and election since I moved to Massachusetts, incl the 2004 Presidential. And I supported him over Dean, though, if I had a do over, I'm not sure what I would do. However, none of that negates the info at the links I posted or makes your chart probative of anything, other than perhaps the chartmaker's agenda.


(Edited to substitute "agenda" for "bias.")

[ProSense]

138. Oh, I did address your point

You just don't like the response.

[No Elephants]

145. I did not like that your alleged response was unresponsive, no.

I never said a word about Dean being a centrist or not being a centrist. Neither did wiki or the other two links I gave, yet that was the only point from those three sources you addressed after asking me if I wanted you to address them.

[ProSense]

149. Really?

You're spouting off about Kerry being DLC and you offer up some nonsense about the DLC attacking Dean as to imply that somehow Kerry was DLC and Dean was more progressive. Now, you want to claim that you didn't imply that Dean was not a centrist?

What was your point: The media attacked Dean because they were afraid that a centrist would win over the infinitely more progressive John Kerry?

[No Elephants]

200. As I said you missed the point.

Again, you ignore context. I was responding to a post about Kerry and the DLC, not a post about whether Dean was more centrist or less centrist than Kerry.

My point in posting the first quote from wiki was to show that DLC opposed Dean in the Dean v. Kerry primary, that Kerry was the DLC candidate from the jump, not only after Kerry became the Party's nominee.

Because the issue I was addressing in that post was Kerry and the DLC, NOT whether Dean was to Kerry's right or to Kerry's left or dead center, my post had nothing whatever to do with the respective political positions of Kerry and Dean. In fact, I don't recall ever in my life posting on that topic. That was a conclusion to which you leapt incorrectly and without basis, even though neither my words nor the words of wiki that I quoted in my post said a hing about whether Dean was or was not a centrist.

And that quote was one of two from wiki and wiki was one of 3 links I gave, yet you have addressed nothhing but that one quote--and you've misaddressed that.

Edited for typos.

[ProSense]

202. No, I didn't miss your point.

"My point in posting the first quote from wiki was to show that DLC opposed Dean in the Dean v. Kerry primary, that Kerry was the DLC candidate from the jump, not only after Kerry became the Party's nominee. "

Lieberman was the DLC candidate in 2004. Kerry strongly supported his opponent, Ned Lamont, in 2006.

The DLC will try to associate with any Democrat who can win. Hillary was the DLC candidate in 2008. Both Hillary and Lieberman are actually members of the DLC.

Still, the point about Kerry and the DLC is inaccurate, especially that HuffPo nonsense about Kerry moving the party to the right.

[No Elephants]

216. LOL, sure you missed it. You kept insisting I was trying to portray Dean as something other

other than a centrist.

So, on nothing but your say so, wiki is wrong, Huffpo is wrong, Common dreams is wrong, and all the other sources you could find if you googled are also wrong. LOL!

[karynnj]

196. Me to - great post

[karynnj]

195. Your content has little to address

The first is a Dean centric view of 2004. It ignores that Dean likely started the Dean/Gephardt war. He did this by playing the game be easily played of using votes out of context to say that Gephardt's support of Medicare/medicaid was weak. This was patently not true - Gephardt was the closest thing to the traditional union/working man candidate in the race. (more than Edwards, who was very conservative and more than Dean, who grew up privileged on Park Ave in NYC overlooking Central Park. It also ignores any campaigning by Kerry and the intense support he had from his veterans and many MA officials. It also ignores that Kerry countered Dean claiming that he (Dean) represented the Democratic wing of the party - by announcing KENNEDY as being that. The rest of the this wikipedia excerpt argues what the DLC likely thought. In fact, it is easier to find support for the DLC really hoping for HRC in 2008. That wing of the party had NEVER been enchanted with Kerry and he was never one of the many people listed on their leadership chart.

The second (Donahue) makes claims about who gave Kerry money. It also asks why Kerry "refused to oppose the war". This ignores that Kerry was listed as "anti-war" in fall 2002 and the first half of 2003 - it was Kerry that David Frum in the National Review equated to France and Germany with not ever wanting to go to war - because he said at Georgetown that "we should not rush to war" and he said that it was not the last resort. (That comment means a lot - as he was saying before Bush called for an invasion that it would not be a just war.) Even here, Donahue argues that Kerry is using "progressive rhetoric", but implies that Kerry is not liberal or progressive. However, Kerry's rhetoric was consistent with rhetoric he has used over his entire public life. As Prosense shows, Kerry's voting record was not typical DLC - and never was.

As to commondreams, this is another Dean supporter opinion piece - and has no real substance. The Kerry campaign did pull in people from the Clinton administration and from other campaigns as they expanded for the general election - as always happens. But, the DLC Clinton people who came in were not always a net positive - running to their people in the media with tales of Kerry not listening to Clinton. It was DLCers, like Carville and Begala, who actually propigated the "ABB" terminology - which was very strange in a general election. Its normal usage was in a primary where there is a goal of replacing the frontrunner. The fact that this writer, who hadn't liked Kerry in the primaries and clearly took no time to consider what his history and what he said meant he would do as President argued that he would be a "Bill Clinton" has no more merit than me saying - he wouldn't.

[No Elephants]

231. In your opinion, perhaps.

As to the first quote from the DLC's eck wiki, you make the same mistake as did Pro Sense. this is about Kerry and the DLC, not Dean or, for heaven's sake, Gephardt or anything else you went on about. My point in including it was only to show that was the DLC was anti-Dean, not merely pro-Kerry after Kerry became the Party's nominee, as the second quote from wiki, standing alone, might imply.

That second quoce from wiki speaks for iself:

"Senator John Kerry won the Democratic primary and chose primary contender Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Both Senators are members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, and the DLC anticipated that they would win the general election. In a March 3, 2004 dispatch, they suggested voters would appreciate Kerry's centrist viewpoints, imagining voters to say "If this is a waffle, bring on the syrup." <24>"

And just in case it does not speak for itself: "The Senate New Democrat Coalition was founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), Bob Graham (Florida), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas).<2>" (Zell Miller, HRC and Chuck Robb are among former members.) Much more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

The link 'to Donahue was 'to show 'the DLC's financing of Kerry's campaign. (Not "claims" about who gave Kerry money, as you tried to frame it. As you very well know, who gave Kerry's campaign money is a matter of public record.)

And no, you don't fill your campaign--or your administration with DLC members for no reason. You surround yourself with like minded folk with whom you are simpatico politically, with maybe a few gadflies to keep you on your toes. And no, as of 2004, it hadn't "always" happened that Democratic Presidential candidates surrounded themselves with DLCers (or former Clintonites). Don't know how you is ludicould even make that claim with a straight face.

And, if we must automatically discount everything a Dean supporter says or writes about Dean or Kerry, whether actually true or not, why not also discount everything said or written about Kerry by someone who defends Kerry to the hilt at every turn, but never seems to have a single criticism of him? Someone like you, for example.


"The fact that this writer, who hadn't liked Kerry in the primaries and clearly took no time to consider what his history and what he said meant he would do as President argued that he would be a "Bill Clinton" has no more merit than me saying - he wouldn't."

Disagree with that, too. You are a nameless, faceless poster who has nothing to lose IRL if you mess up on a message board. You are not identifiable IRL, and you are not trying to earn a living by making what you post here credible to Democrats in general, as opposed to supporters of only Dean or only Kerry.

[karynnj]

187. I notice that your quotes are not from Kerry

The fact is that I am not surprised that there are former dean supporters who wrote negative things about John Kerry in 2004. The fact though is that Kerry had a more liberal record than Howard Dean, who had been a DLC moderate governor of VT - and he was strongly supported because of it by the liberal lion of the Senate. The fact is that, just like the worst of the former Clinton supporters who became PUMAs in 2008, there were disgruntled Dean supporters in 2004 - who did not move to support the nominee as Clinton and Dean did.

The fact is that the DLC in 2004 did not favor Kerry until it was clear he was winning. He won Iowa in January - in December, he was so not the party favorite that he had to lend himself $6 million, essentially most of his own assets. It is true he was helped by Gephardt and Dean, for all purposes, declaring war on each other. Both Dean and Gephardt had very tough ads showing the other in the worst light possible. But, from accounts written by people actually in Iowa, Kerry won the nomination the old fashioned, hard way - by speaking face to face with voters until they were convinced that he was the best choice. The fact is had Kerry been a media favorite the key day in the story of 2004 would have been the day that Kerry was reunited with Rassman. It had the quality of a 1940s movie. The lack of time to plan an event actually helped as it showed an unusually emotional Kerry and Rassman, a former republican law enforcement officer and former marine, hugging each other after Kerry downplayed having saved his life. Meanwhile, in another part of Iowa, Dean angrily told an angry 70 ish heclker to "sit down". The two stories played in succession on news shows for the rest of the day.

[No Elephants]

233. I notice you do not provide a single link to support your attempts to discredit the three links I

provided to show connections between Kerry and the DLC--and much of what you posted is wholly irrelevant to that issue. (You can find many more links if you google.)

No, I do not believe that only Kerry's own words can be considered in deciding whether or not he is connected to the DLC. But, if you want to imply that, how about holding yourself to that same silly standard? Enough people put it out there very publicly that he is so connected. Do you have a quote from Kerry saying there are no such connections? (As it happens, I wrote him about a year ago, as my Senator, saying that, while I supported him generally, I did not appreciate his relationship with the DLC. Crickets was the only reply.)

How about a quote from him clearly stating the political differences between the DLC and the New Democrat Coalition, of which he is a member? And if there aren't any significant substantive differences, what on earth are you and I debating about? A name?

And no, I also do not believe that we should or must automatically discount anything and everything said about Kerry by a professional Democratic pundit or strategist, simply because that person supported Dean in the primary. Candidly, your repeated attempts to sell the argument that any Democratic pundit who did not support Kerry in the primary has probably lied about him ever since, at the risk of his or her career seem bizarre.

Hell, I supported Kerry (my state's favorite son in 2004) in the primary. That doesn't mean I never again thereafter ever told the truth about Dean or Lieberman--and I'mm not trying to make a living based on the credibility of my statements about Dem pols.

I supported Obama this go round and really got invested--and therefore ticked now and again at his main opponent and her campaign. Had Hillary won the nom, I may have moaned for a day, maybe even a week, but I would have supported the hell out of her from minute one until Election Day, anyway. That's what sane, adult Democrats do. I cannot speak for PUMAs (most of whom were, IMO, Republicans stirring pots on behalf of McCain, anyway or insane), nor can I speak for idolators. I simply cannot relate to either group.

[blm]

272. Poorly researched articles - DLC supported TWO candidates, Lieberman and Edwards.

DLC was NOT behind Kerry early on...they didn't even direct their moneymen to donate to his campaign until it was apparent he'd be the nominee after Iowa. DLC wasn't even interested in winning 2004, at all - they were with Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and waiting it out till 2008 when Hillary would be their candidate.

Something many of you and your 'sources' leave out is the FACT that Kerry had no money by December2003 and was being told by Dem party 'strategists' to drop out of the race. Kerry knew his ground game in Iowa was succeeding and he mortgaged his house to continue. Guess the Einsteins who write their vanity views of the primaries always manage to miss the big disconnect - if DLC wanted Kerry they would have directed their moneymen to donate vigorously to Kerry's campaign so he could compete financially with Dean back in November and December of 2003. Ooops....they didn't. After Iowa the DLC jumped in front of cameras to make it appear as if they were a force, probably knowing it would piss off Dean supporters even more and that they'd blame Kerry.

Further - Kerry was against the invasion. He spoke against invading Iraq before, during and after. As he promised he would if Bush invaded before establishing the evidence necessary to justify force.

Kerry voted for IWR and held true to his promise to oppose a decision to invade that went against evidence. Kerry sided with weapon inspectors that there was no need for military force - none of the other IWR voters would side with Kerry then. And, Kerry was no more prowar than Dean who stated in Oct 2002 that he would have voted yes on Biden-Lugar version of IWR. However, both the RW and left media dug in that Kerry was the prowar candidate and Dean the antiwar candidate. Both men did speak against Bush's DECISION to invade, but, media didn't give a shit about truth, only the contest they could agitate. And Dems lapped it up, too, allowing themselves to be misdirected and piling on the smearing of Kerry by the corporate media, the Bush campaign, and the DLCers who wanted 2004 over with so they could prepare for Hillary2008.

[No Elephants]

87. ....

"It is amazing how many anti Kerry people seem to be on a first name basis with him in their attacks - something I have NEVER seen towards any other Democrat."

You've probably seen it with both Clintons (Bubba, Slick Willie, Bill, Hillary, Billary). Also Jarring Joe Lieberman (while he called himself a Democrat). And Barack (whom some Dems even call "Barry"). Maybe you're just less sensitive to it with Kerry, to whom you seem to have a special relationship/loyalty.

And Truman is often called "Harry," and Ted Kennedy called "Ted or Teddy, albeit by their Democratic supporters, not by their Democratic detractors. That may well be because neither of them seems to have many Democratic detractors.

The phenomenon of Democratic detractors of Democratic pols seems to be reserved either for ethically- or criminally-challenged Democrats (e.g., Blago, Rangel) or for DLC, New Democrats, Third Way Democrats (or whatever name--if any--they're using this week to distinguish themselves from classic Democrats), conservadems, DINOS, etc., who now seem to have completed their take over of the DNC and the leadership of the national party, to the point that they can now probably stop inventing new aliases for themselves.

[karynnj]

198. My point was the points that sacastly addressed questions to "John"

Though first names are used for politicians - especially Hillary (likely due to it being clearer than Clinton which could also be Bill)

The fact is that Kerry is one of the more liberal, progressive Democrats in the Senate. The real reason is that he beat St Howard Dean and then lost.

[No Elephants]

234. Wait. Let me try to get this straight.

In Reply #19, you posted, in part:

"It is amazing how many anti Kerry people seem to be on a first name basis with him in their atatcks - something I have NEVER seen towards any other Democrat."

I replied, in part:

"You've probably seen it with both Clintons (Bubba, Slick Willie, Bill, Hillary, Billary). Also Jarring Joe Lieberman (while he called himself a Democrat). And Barack (whom some Dems even call "Barry"). Maybe you're just less sensitive to it with Kerry, to whom you seem to have a special relationship/loyalty.

And Truman is often called "Harry," and Ted Kennedy called "Ted or Teddy, albeit by their Democratic supporters, not by their Democratic detractors. That may well be because neither of them seems to have many Democratic detractors."

Now, though, you post:" My point was the points that sacastly addressed questions to "John""




Are you now saying, your original point was not really use of a Democrat's first name in any ole attack, after all; you originally meant only attacks that are in the very specific form of sarcastic questions addressed to a Dem by his or her first name?

If you are, I fear I simply can't believe you.



I also wrote:

And Truman is often called "Harry," and Ted Kennedy called "Ted or Teddy, albeit by their Democratic supporters, not by their Democratic detractors. That may well be because neither of them seems to have many Democratic detractors.

The phenomenon of Democratic detractors of Democratic pols seems to be reserved either for ethically- or criminally-challenged Democrats (e.g., Blago, Rangel) or for DLC, New Democrats, Third Way Democrats (or whatever name--if any--they're using this week to distinguish themselves from classic Democrats), conservadems, DINOS, etc., who now seem to have completed their take over of the DNC and the leadership of the national party, to the point that they can now probably stop inventing new aliases for themselves."


While you did not disagree directly with my above statements, you wrote:


"The fact is that Kerry is one of the more liberal, progressive Democrats in the Senate."



I agree, as far as one of the most liberal current Senators, but please see Reply #93. I cannot agree or disagree as to "progressive" bc I have no idea what "progressive" means when a signer of the 2003 PNAC memo is also head of the Progressive Policy Institute.


"The real reason is that he beat St Howard Dean and then lost."

Total non sequitur and also only your opinion, so no sense responding.

[YvonneCa]

41. Is it not the duty of the electorate to develop the skills...

...of listening and reading comprehension?

People don't pay attention...that's why we got eight years of GWB.

[KakistocracyHater]

63. no, they stuffed the electronic ballot boxes, THAT is why we got 8

nightmare years, plus a GOP gov in Georgia, only Republicans allowed to be in the same room while recounting votes, etc.

[No Elephants]

111. U.S. voters incapable of listening and reading explain the 2000 and 2004 elections? In what reality?

[YvonneCa]

136. Sorry. That's not what I meant. n/t

[No Elephants]

235. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

[KakistocracyHater]

62. yes, that's one of their duties, to get their side heard & also to represent

THEIR side, NOT the Right's base. But that would be logical

[treestar]

156. Oh for God's sake

Anyone can deliver any message, the voters have to pick the candidate they will vote for and pull the lever. It's their problem if they won't take the time to think about it.

Jesus on a trailer hitch, you'd think people were just clay to be molded by the leaders (who are chosen how?)

[wisteria]

15. I remember Pres. Clinton saying when voters think, they elect Democrats.

Unfortunately, right now many people are not thinking or bothering to get good information. They are listening to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin and Beck and they are being misinformed. And, not only misinformed, but when you listen to Beck, Palin and the rest, they are attempting to stir things up and get people angry. It is a damn shame so many people truly believe these clowns are telling them the truth and what they are doing is for the good of America.

[Barbara2423]

16. I agree with Kerry. One other thing that made us mad is our

President spent to much time trying to work with the GOP when it was clear to everyone but himself they were not interested. That made be mad as heck.

[Exilednight]

90. Obama cutting backroom deals with the health insurance industry and big pharma ....................

is what made me mad. Obama was swept into office on the promise of transparency. Instead, what we got was a backroom deal to trade away the public option and prescription drugs from Canada in exchange for the promise of health insurance lobby and big pharma not running ads against the bills.

[Francesca9]

140. We were wrongly told that HCR would get fixed "later"

We need 60 Senate votes to fix HCR. When will we next have 60 Senate votes?

[ProSense]

18. It's amazing how people keep letting the RW Boston Herald

rope them in with idiotic spin. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Kerry's statement:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

Conservative political blogger William Jacobson, who writes Legal Insurrection, immediately pounced on Kerry’s comments, saying that attitude is why voters are looking to shake up Capitol Hill by electing upstart candidates such as U.S. Sen. Scott Brown.

The Boston Herald puts a stupid title, which doesn't even match the quote. The Hill further distorts it, and everyone starts repeating it.

Why any Democrat would fall for this is beyond me.

John Kerry bitter as Tea Party gains steam

Want to know what led to that headline: this

Maybe everyone can start using the RW as their source for news.

[wisteria]

22. Thank you. Now, I think we need to all go and set the Hill straight.

The Boston Herald is one thing, but the "Hill" should not be repeating misinformation and get away with it.

[MBS]

24. Thanks, Prosense. You said it all

:applause:
I read the entire article, and I agree with you 100%.

[karynnj]

25. Excellent points

Not to mention, here is what Murdoch, owner of the BH has as his goal - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x454875

The fact is that he ignores that Brown is pretty ineffectual on talk shows - he is not knowledgeable and doesn't seem to do his homework. Kerry, on the other hand, is effective and he was one of Obama's best surrogates precisely because he can explain things well and convince people. Though some resent it here, Kerry won his LT GOV, first Senate and Presidential nomination without being the media favorite - by simply convincing more people. These people need to get over 2004 and take a look at who Kerry is and has been all his life.

One place to start is to listen to what he said on the Senate floor this week - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=598830850 Then realize that his points here - other than the details from this year - are exactly what he was saying when he and Wellstone re- introduced Kerry's Campaign Finance bill that Wellstone co-sponsored with him. The relationship to what Kerry said that the BH jumped on - as Prosense's link shows, People like the Koch brothers are spending MANY TIMES the amount spent by the SBVT to LIE about the issues. Between the billions for lying ads and their "dree" media - FOX and the right wing talk radio and various RW papers, like Murdock's BH and NY Post. It should infuriate everyone that a RW Australian has so much influence in setting opinions.

[No Elephants]

107. What point? Please see Reply ##s 99 and 106

[wisteria]

29. Do you have Kerry's complete statement? n/t

[ProSense]

30. No, but it looks like

he was there to announce funding in conjunction with the new health care law provisions.

Kerry Announces Four MA Organizations To Receive $6.2 Million For Public Health

Funding will help address childhood obesity, smoking cessation and will bolster state’s health information systems

BOSTON – On the six month anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Health Care Act, Senator John Kerry today announced that four Massachusetts organizations will receive a total of $6,246,482 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The federal funding will go towards key health priorities across the state, including addressing childhood obesity and smoking cessation.

Kerry made the announcement on Friday while touring Boston Medical Center. He was on hand to highlight how national health reform will benefit Massachusetts hospitals, such as BMC. He’ll also discuss his plans to continue to work with BMC on securing much needed federal funding for the short term as well as its long term. BMC is one of the top 20 employers in Massachusetts, leading the way in the new world of health care delivery.

“These are investments to make Massachusetts healthier. We know we need to focus not just on sickness, but on wellness. The unique work being done at BMC, at the Food Pantry here and by organizations like the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality is ensuring Massachusetts continues to lead the way in quality, affordable healthcare,” said Senator John Kerry.

The following MA organizations will receive funding:

$4,983,638 National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality – Boston

The funding will allow the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality to create and manage a new Prevention Center for Healthy Weight to address obesity in children and families. This is a monumental achievement, and a national model that once again will have Massachusetts setting the standard in healthcare achievements.

$718,230 Massachusetts State Department of Public Health – Boston

The funding will allow the Massachusetts State Department of Public Health to increase its epidemiology, laboratory and health information systems capacity, including hiring specialists who can work on multiple infectious diseases and increasing the number of labs using electronic medical records.

$460,690 Community Healthlink, Inc. – Worcester

The funding, from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at HHS, will allow Community Healthlink to improve the coordination of healthcare services in the Worcester area, particularly by supporting and promoting better primary care and behavioral health services for individuals with mental illnesses or substance use disorders.

$83,924 Massachusetts Department of Health – Boston

The funding will help the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to implement a plan to reduce tobacco use through legislative, regulatory, and educational arenas, as well as enhance and expand the national network of tobacco cessation quit lines to significantly increase the number of tobacco users who quit.

[karynnj]

33. So, the Boston Herald ignored what the bill did for MA and is trying to create a media circus

out of nothing. As it is undeniable that many people have factual misconceptions about various issues, there is nothing here.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[No Elephants]

106. The VERY brief OP contains language identical to what you quoted, so what's your point? See Reply#

99.

[truthisfreedom]

23. He's right. The way to solve it is to get the message out non-stop between now and the election.

Dominate the news.

[No Elephants]

108. ?? The DNC and leading Dems should always be getting out the message.

If they fail in their responsiblity, it's not the fault of voters. Hell, they hear Palin loud and clear and all she does is tweet semi-insane things.

[karynnj]

254. Might be because the media prominently discussed each of the Palin tweets, while

Democratic leaders, other than the President, are covered only if the RW has distilled a sentence or two that can be twisted if they frame it correctly.

Look at your own Boston papers. The Boston Globe, the "good" paper, wrote their article on the small business tax as something similar to Brown votes against the bill. If you read the article, you would find that the former Small Business chair, Kerry, wrote a few of the provisions and that the bill passed. In addition to the title, more prominence was given to Brown's lame reason for voting "no" than to a description of what the bill did or what Kerry said. Now, this would make sense had the bill failed. The newsworthy part then would be that the bill failed - and if it failed by one vote - Brown's vote and reason.

In addition, Brown's every sneeze in the state is covered and most Kerry visits - even when he has extensive meetings aren't. (I know this because I do look at his web page's PR releases and at google.

[Safetykitten]

26. Is'nt really our fault. I mean really, we are petchulant, uniformed, lazy,

we don't follow through, we complain, get nasty, want all kinds of wild ass things, we don't follow directions, we don't pester the president, we pester him too much, we don't deserve him, we do deserve him...

But I guess we got one thing right. We elected Obama and Kerry.

[MH1]

34. Technically speaking

that's 2 things right. :)

[DFLforever]

27. He's right about voter anger

Its not directed at the right people unless it's aimed at the GOPers.

[YvonneCa]

42. Yes, he is. n/t

[unkachuck]

28. "A lot of the anger today.."

....what are you saying John? November's going to be a stinker?

....it doesn't matter John, to the conservative forces of darkness inside or outside of the Party; they always win....

....and if things go poorly, the Progressives will be blamed....if things go well, the corporatists will take credit....the same ruse, over and over....

....in or out of the Party John, people know....

[karynnj]

31. Kerry has honestly spoken of the anger people feel since at least 2005

when he spoke of Katrina. The fact is that people are angry - this is not what life in America was suppose to be. What would an honest answer be to the question he was likely asked? The facts are that Obama and the Democrats in Congress fought like Hell to get as big a stimulus program out there - Kerry was one who argued it should have been bigger. He also is still fighting to get TANF extended - as it worked and it helps soem of the poorest people.

Kerry is not the enemy - nor is he a "corporatist", he has fought for people his entire career.

[No Elephants]

119. Some people feel anger. That's undeniable. Why they feel it is a matter of opinion.

And the reasons are different for different groups. Tea Partiers and classic Democrat may both be angry at those of both Parties who are in office, but the reason(s) for the anger of the Tea Partiers are very different from the reason(s) for the anger of classic Democrats.

[Francesca9]

142. Will you agree that everyone hates HCR (as it passed) ?

For different reasons?

Almost everyone still wants health care reform BUT no one likes the law that passed.

[JI7]

35. hahah, what Kerry said was proven in so many replies in this thread

[Democat]

65. You're right.

People read the "slogan" in the headline and ignore the article, then attack Kerry.

[treestar]

159. Thank you!

I can hardly believe the amount of passive laziness the voters are justified in the by the many responses.

[Mass]

208. Thanks,

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Let's see... 20% unemployment

but the bankers got $12+ trillion of our tax cash to gamble some more with. And Obama has a commission to slash Social Security.

Good point, Senator.

[wisteria]

51. I am unemployed, but I am smart enough to realize why it was important to maintain our banking

structure.

[KakistocracyHater]

66. the tarp money just staunched the wound temporarily, they should have

made it a prerequisate to receive the money-you have to accept the reinstatement of Glass/Steagal Act. Until that is in place again, the very same conditions are there which allowed the crash to begin with. Banks should never be allowed to gamble with other people's money, nor other people's houses.

They did not fix the banking sector. Unfortunately.

[Grinchie]

69. Good God.. Care to Explain the Ponzi Scheme for us?

[No Elephants]

115. Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

Doing exactly as we did (at the behest of Bush and Paulsen, btw) and not maintaining "our" banking structure are by far not the universe off alternatives.

[scentopine]

40. WTF? Out of Touch? Try out of work and out of time! Jesus f'ing Christ...

Democratic voters are flapping in the breeze because we are out of touch? Really? You think so? You mother f'ers better get your shit together. Damn it, is there was any more proof needed that party leadership is spineless and unprincipled?

Kerry - you and your buddies let out a huge fart. Don't blame it on the dog. For God's sake, take some responsibility for your own stink.

[Grinchie]

70. No Shit.. Kerry is a Jackass for this remark.

[ProSense]

110. Hmmm?

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

You think that comment is worthy of your response?

Kerry's comment was not only accurate and astute, but it appears that it applies not only to Fox Noise fans, but also people who don't take time to learn the facts before reacting and voting.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[YvonneCa]

43. FWIW, I think Kerry meant this as an explanation...

...of current circumstances...not as an attack on the people. Some here seem to have taken it as an attack. I also don't think he said people shouldn't be angry...they have every reason to be so, in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

45. Agreed. It sounds like blaming voters but that's not John Kerry.

The media seldom if ever gets what he's saying right.

[YvonneCa]

46. No, Kerry wouldn't do that. But the media...

...they don't even try to get it right when Kerry is involved.

[EFerrari]

47. Nope. He doesn't fit easily into the polarized, black and white cr@p

that we take for political reporting any more. Kerry is a holdover from when the media had a brain.

lol

[YvonneCa]

48. And actually used it...

... :7

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[icnorth]

100. I can't imagine how John ever lost that election

since he likes to provide optional positions. "I Actually Did Vote for the $87 Billion, Before I voted Against It". :eyes:

[ProSense]

121. RW talking points? n/t

[EFerrari]

148. I don't think Kerry did lose that election. n/t

[blm]

263. EVERY legislator votes for/against a version of a bill before they vote against/for another version

and every one in DC knows it, but, those in the media intent on protecting Bush ran with the Rove narrative that somehow Kerry's vote was different and indecisive, counting on the fact that MOST Americans have been so dumbed down they would be unfamiliar with the normal and expected voting process.

Even people here at DU have been dumbed down to believe this spin and use it as if it actually meant something.

Pathetic.

[No Elephants]

242. You are the first on this thread to say he may have been misquoted. I agree this is a possiblity.

[wisteria]

53. I agree. He was offering an explanation and the repubs seized on it like a derogatory statement

against voter's anger. I am so sick of these RW distortions. But, I am exasperated that the Dem's do little to counter punch most of it.

[wisteria]

49. All the RW regulars picked up on this "story". Doesn't that say something to you and the others who

were quick to jump on him here? The senator's words have been redefined to suit the RW talking points. Any reasonable person would know he did not call the electorate stupid. And, this piece comes from the Boston Herald-which is a RW mouth piece. This was meant as red meat to their rabid readers.
But here at DU, this good Democrat should be defended and those who are misleadingly posting this twisting redefinition of his words should be called out.

The RW is mad at Senator Kerry because he has been calling out the stupidity of the Republican leadership and raising money for Democrats.

[EFerrari]

57. No one needs to be called out. And if you can show how the article is wrong

you don't need to even suggest such a thing. We have enough gratuitous witch hunting around here as it is.

[wisteria]

59. Just the fact that it appears in the Boston Herald with the headline it does should be proof enough.

But he was replying to a question and his answer was redefined to suit the needs of the Boston Herald. Perhaps you aren't familiar with this paper-which is an extention of Fox News and other propoganda papers printed for the purpose of furthering the RW agenda.

Actually, the paper ignored entirely where Senator Kerry was when he was asked the question, but they made sure they could twist and distort his words to be replayed over and over again on their various media and web sites.

http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=a1c8141a-0bba-4167-9ab0-b8d35139225c

Oh, and I am not out witch hunting. I am just pointing out what should be obvious to many here at DU. Too many times we jumb at RW talking points and we should know better.

[EFerrari]

147. I'm familiar with the Boston Hurled. n/t

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[veganlush]

50. he's right of course...n/t

[Historic NY]

58. He really means ignorant voters & he is right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Not a big Kerry fan but he's right on this

The American public is grossly uninformed. Partly because our media sucks and partly because they are more interested in Dancing With the Stars and American Idol.

[Eric Condon]

68. .

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-negative-campaign-ads-blast-voters-directly,1156/

[ixion]

74. No, sir. The Democratic Leadership is to blame for their own situation

in part because they're always trying to blame others for their own piss-poor performance.

[RBInMaine]

81. There has been a GREAT legislative performance, but yes, their messaging does need work.

[ixion]

85. I would disagree...

I've been unimpressed with legislative, executive and judicial performance.

[Scuba]

78. Scuba blames out-of-touch Dem Leaders for medterm image problems.

[RBInMaine]

79. He is criticizing the MSM/Fauz News/Corporate noise machine and saying that they need to be angry at

the RePUKES and not us. At the same, D's do need to do a better job on their own messaging. But yeah, it is like with healthcare. Once people are informed about it, they overwhelmingly support it. Too much propaganda, and too many people are duped by it. Also, too many people today don't do research. They listen to sound bites. Sad.

[Dr.Phool]

88. Kerry puts millions to sleep.

Wonders why they're out of touch.

[rustyd55]

91. he is right for once

where bush brought us in 8 years wont be undone in 2 years. our problems are republicans being elected as democrats. 30 dems ready to vote to extend tax cuts for all.

[Vinca]

94. Actually, I think the reverse is true. If we hadn't been paying attention,

we wouldn't be as upset with our spineless Democratic representatives.

[Mass]

104. Did I land in freeperland by error? Boston Herald should be a clue

Or is it another 2004 primary thread? Just wondering, because it is the most absurd thread I have seen in a while. No there there, but apparently, some of you are in love with the Murdoch media.

BTW, Kerry's statement is totally uncontroversial. People are too busy earning their life with 2 or 3 jobs to pay attention to the details of politics. But count on the Murdoch media and some DUers to make that controversial.

[ProSense]

113. "Kerry's statement is totally uncontroversial. " Seriously

look at the reaction from some to an excellent point.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

The RW and Kerry detractors love to jump on BoHerd spin with little regard for facts.

Assholes.

Kerry and every Democrat need to keep repeating this. Let them have their hissy fits.

[MBS]

127. " " " " " "n/t

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

120. So you're here jumping on Kerry for making a excellent point

because of this?

What the hell does that have to do with his point?

[TBF]

131. Kerry did not make an excellent point. Kerry is wrong.

Elitists can keep blathering on about people being stupid, but I find that to be typically arrogant and just wrong. People know when they are being screwed over, and don't always know what to do with that energy. Initially we'll probably continue to see them act by voting out incumbents. At some point they'll figure out that neither party is helping them. When you see them gathering in the streets protesting you'll know they've figured it out.

[ProSense]

133. "Elitists "? Hmmmm? Can you

link to where Kerry said people were "stupid"?

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

[TBF]

134. You can play word games all you want,

Kerry is still wrong. People are very much aware of what is going on. They know when they are unemployed, they know the economy has tanked, they know they can't afford their health care, etc... they are paying attention. Unfortunately right now we are seeing it come out in Tea Parties and that kind of behavior, but unless the economy improves the protesting will get more serious.

[ProSense]

137. You can't link to where he said anyone was stupid because he didn't say it.

"Kerry is still wrong. People are very much aware of what is going on. "

Is that why they're buying into Republican lies being advanced by the media?

[TBF]

139. If people would see progress from this administration

they would be less likely to buy into those lies, would they not?

[ProSense]

141. So you think that people are

buying Republican lies because they don't see progress?

No, they're buying the lies because the media repeats them. It's the reason 20 percent of Americans believe the President is Muslim.

[Francesca9]

152. People know that HCR has not helped them yet

When the Bush tax cuts expire the tax rate on the lower earners will rise 50%. Who will they blame?

People will not wait until 2014 to judge HCR, they are looking at 2010. Did we reduce health care costs by $2,500 as promised? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

The GOP is running on these two issues. They will say that the tax increases and lack of health care affordability are our fault.

The GOP is running on these two issues. We cannot fix either without 60 Senate votes and they will make sure that in 2012 that taxes are still high on the lower end earners and that access to health care has further eroded. This is evil, it ignores the needs of the people, but it also will work well.

It is a fact that HCR isn't helping us much this year and it is also a fact that without action income taxes on the working poor are scheduled to rise 50%. These facts are why the GOP is now targeting us on these.

[ProSense]

157. Hmmm?

The GOP is running on these two issues. They will say that the tax increases and lack of health care affordability are our fault.

The GOP is running on these two issues. We cannot fix either without 60 Senate votes and they will make sure that in 2012 that taxes are still high on the lower end earners and that access to health care has further eroded. This is evil, it ignores the needs of the people, but it also will work well.

It is a fact that HCR isn't helping us much this year and it is also a fact that without action income taxes on the working poor are scheduled to rise 50%. These facts are why the GOP is now targeting us on these.

Are you campaigning for Republicans?

[Francesca9]

161. Read the new "contract"

It focuses on (1) taxes and (2) HCR

Why are we walking into their trap on these?

The income tax rate on those who earn the least will jump 50% and we could stop this. We passed a HCR law that no one likes. We promised that our health care costs would drop $2,500 and they are going up fast.

The RNC is planning for 2012 to run on these issues. I'm saying that we should act now so that they cannot.

[ProSense]

162. Question:

Do you agree with the GOP on Bush tax cuts and repealing health care reform?


Also, I read their Pledge, aka the Contract on America.

[Francesca9]

166. No

The tax cuts on the wealthy should expire.

The problem is that the entire law expires - and without 60 senate votes to extend these for all but the wealthy, ALL Americans will have significant tax increases. These will hurt those in the lower bracket the most, their taxes rise 50%. Parents will lose their exemptions and will pay a LOT more tax in January. Everyone will be pissed off at Democrats then. I would for this reason extend the whole law rather than let the entire law expire.

Everyone wants to change HCR. I do too. I don't know what the GOP plan is for HCR and I'm not sure how I would reform HCR if I could. What I am sure of is that if health care costs keep rising that 2012 will be a worse election than 2012.

We are walking into a trap, we can still keep ALL Americans from having large income tax increases in January - and we should. We might be able to fix HCR before January - and we should.

[ProSense]

172. Let them expire

Screw Republicans. Democrats can introduce President Obama's permanent tax cuts for the middle-class and make them retroactive.

[Francesca9]

176. Screw the Americans who earn the least?

Screw the Americans who earn the least? Increase taxes on every working American?

Your plan will increase the lowest tax bracket by 50%

There is no way to pass any tax cut on anyone without 60 senate votes. If you know of a way, fine, then we should use it.
If there is no other way to avoid screwing every working American - then we should extend the whole package. So how do we pass anything without the votes?

[ProSense]

178. Wait

"Screw Republicans" is the same as: "Screw the Americans who earn the least?

Is this more campaigning for Republicans?

[Francesca9]

183. There are ONLY two choices, let the Bush Tax Cuts expire - or not.

You want them to expire. This will screw every working American - and you favor this.

There are 60 Senate votes to extend them without changes, but there are not even 50 votes to extend them while dropping the wealthy.

[ProSense]

184. "You want them to expire." Damn right

Republicans are not going to vote to make the middle class tax cuts permanent as long as the tax cuts for the rich are still in effect.

[Francesca9]

185. In January low income workes will have 50% more tax withheld

I think that they will notice. Who will they blame?

The Republicans will kick off their campaign to help them. They may need 5-11 democrats to pass their bill. They will get enough democrats to pass their bill.

[ProSense]

186. "Who will they blame?"

Republicans.

You know what else they will notice: the Make Work Pay tax credits they'll get that Republicans want to deny them by repealing the rest of the stimulus.

[Francesca9]

190. No one has heard of "Make Work Pay tax credits"

They will notice that their take home pay went down and will turn on the news to find out who did it. FoxNews will explain it and I doubt that there will be any mention of "Make Work Pay tax credits".

Will "Make Work Pay tax credits" be enough in January to offset a 50% increase in withholding? If so, then fine - that will work.

It is all about take home pay. mess with take home pay and you have some angry Americans. If the tax cuts expire EVERY working American will suffer - and most will be angry.

[karynnj]

199. You are misleading yourself by speaking of percentages without looking at the numbers

The tax rates to which people would return are the tax rates that were paid when Clinton was President. They are FAR lower than the taxes where you currently live per your profile.

As to HCR, it is telling that the Republicans included in their vague plan many features actually in the HCR bill - without admitting that.

[Francesca9]

203. The Bush Tax Cuts reduced the lowest from 15% to 10%

January 1, the lowest tax bracket will again be 15% and the lowest paid workers will have 50% more withheld.

The child credits will also expire, parents will feel the bite.

Messing with everyone's take home pay is a dangerous strategy

[Francesca9]

144. Kerry is misunderstood often

What he means and what America hears are far too often very different.

Your points about what he meant are good. He however seems to be blaming the voters who are angry about how little has been accomplished. Initially I thought this, again.

Are political enemies are spinning his remarks? Yes, this is what happens in politics - and it happens to him a lot.

I like the guy, but every time he sticks his nose outside of MA it seems to get cut off.

[ProSense]

146. "What he means and what America hears are far too often very different. " Hmmm?

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

What did you hear?

Did you mean to say: What he says and what the RW claims are often very different?

[Francesca9]

168. I don't understand your question.

John Kerry seems to only be well understood in MA.

He says a lot of things that are easily twisted or misunderstood.

[ProSense]

171. "John Kerry seems to only be well understood in MA."

Really?

No, really?

[EFerrari]

191. If no one understood Kerry outside MA, there would have been no need

for the Republicans to steal Ohio or for Ken Blackwell to sabotage the Ohio recount.

[karynnj]

244. Well - Prosense (from her profile) and I are from NJ

We never have had any trouble understanding anything he says. Here, he gave a thoughtful answer to a question.

I don't think that the things he says are more easily twisted or misunderstood - very much the opposite. He is one of the more effective Democrats explaining complicated issues. That is why the RW spends time twisting bits of sentences out of context - just to try to take him out as a speaker.

Obama picked Kerry as the final Meet the Press surrogate. This was because he had more faith in Kerry being able to competently answer any question on anything.

[EFerrari]

150. Senator Kerry is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He "sticks his nose" outside of MA every day as the chairman of one of the most powerful committees in the Senate.

[Francesca9]

173. That is my point, exactly

He does fine when he is not in the national news. The Foreign Relations Committee is very important, but it almost never is in the news. (Yes, there are a few news outlets that cover it.)

How often does the San Francisco Chronicle or the Orange County Register mention this committee - or Kerry? Every other year?

He does best when not trying to understand or communicate with those in Arkansas or north Dakota. The Foreign Relations Committee is a good job for him.

I didn't like his presidential campaign and I rarely hear of him since then.

[EFerrari]

180. That you don't like John Kerry and don't follow that committee

is not a basis to extrapolate that the committee is not covered or that he's not in the news.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Senator+John+Kerry&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

[karynnj]

243. It is not true that every time he speaks, it is misunderstood

There was NO ONE who was better as an Obama surrogate on multiple shows a week - both in the primaries and in the general election.

The fact here is that BEFORE anyone reads Kerry's rather unexceptional comment that likely was in response to a question on why the Democrats were doing poorly in the 2010 elections, they read the title which says Kerry said something that he did not say. Then when you get to the quote it is seen in that context. The point is that Kerry was there to announce some MA funding. As always, he was politely answering the questions asked. Here, this quote was very likely the only spinnable thing he said - and that read alone is simply an intelligent observation.

[Desertrose]

143. How about blaming the media for the crap they spew in 15 sec soundbytes?

Just sayin....short attention spans make it tough to pick out the lies....

[EFerrari]

151. Which speaks to Kerry's point, doesn't it?

People are angry and they go after the wrong targets.

[treestar]

154. He's right, and it's been the case for decades.

Voters have no right to be angry, they brought it on themselves. Who put Reagan and Bush in office?

[EFerrari]

160. Unlike yourself, Senator Kerry DID NOT SAY voters have no right to be angry. n/t

[clarence swinney]

163. Clinton to Bush to Obama

Kerry, why not tell the people this damaging information?
Soft Talk the party to defeat.

How can a party allow such a horrid party to get re-elected
Clinton left Bush Heaven On Earth
Bush left Obama Hell on Earth
Clinton left Bush an 1800B Budget and four balanced budgets
Bush Left Obama 3600B Budget
Clinton left Bush a 5700B of Debt
Bush left Obama 11,800B of Debt
Clinton left Bush a 237,00 new net jobs created per month
Bush left Obama a 31,000 lowest since Hoover.
Clinton left Bush Peace on Earth
Bush left Obama Hell on Earth Two disastrous wars
Clinton left Bush a President most highly rated of any peacetime President in Asia, Africa, Europe.
Bush left Obama the most hated President in history
Bush left Obama an Housing Tsunami and Financial Volcano
Bush left Obama, in 2008, an 8500B Bail out commitment
Bush left Obama his Takeover of Fannie/Freddie , AIG, and first bailout of Chrysler

How can any honest informed person vote to re-continue such horrid actions and results?

clarence swinney
political historian
lifeaholics of america
author-Lifeaholic--Life story of workaholic failure to llifeaholic success
University President- "Every college student should have this book"

[Odin2005]

167. Elitist twattle.

[TBF]

201. Finally some sense in this thread - that's exactly what it is. nt

[EFerrari]

210. That's certainly how it was framed by the headline

but you won't find any of that in Kerry's comments.

I don't defend elitist cr@p, that's for sure. This isn't elitist crap but a right wing media hit job.

Look at the words.

[Dappleganger]

182. While I respect Sen. Kerry, he is dead wrong.

It's the democratic party who is out of touch, Mr. Kerry.

[davidinalameda]

209. stupid ass comments

if the public is so uninformed-get off your ass and inform them!

[ProSense]

213. Actually, Kerry's comments were spot on. Look

at the reaction to his comment:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry said Friday in Boston, according to the Herald. "A lot of the anger today — while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken — is not directed at the right people."

The media clearly has significan sway over people's perception. Those who spend their time watching Fox Noise are never going to get the facts.

[davidinalameda]

224. then find some other way to reach them

the republicans did it

[karynnj]

241. The Republicans have an echo chamber of talk radio, much of cable news and

many newspapers. The problem is that Democrats genuinely believe in good journalism - not propaganda.

[depakid]

249. Hey how about that Clinton era media deregulation!

The gift that keeps on giving.

[karynnj]

253. Very, very true - it allowed the echo chamber to grow

[annabanana]

219. "out of touch" voters? Out of touch VOTERS?!?!

Jeez Kerry my dear. Almost by definition, voters are seldom the ones who are "out of touch".


A lovely case of "every one's out of step but me"-itis you've got there Senator.

[ProSense]

223. Twenty percent of Americans think President Obama is Muslim

Poll: 55% Of Likely Voters Think Obama's A Socialist

They heard it on Fox Noise.

[EFerrari]

232. anna, look at what he said: people are misled by slogans

and Washington is broken. It's hard to disagree with that.

He didn't write the headline and it's not a direct quote -- but it sure worked, didn't it.

[Yeahyeah]

225. The word from the street.

Easy street.

[No Elephants]

248. I agree with something in almost every post on this thread.

Kerry is indeed one of the best Senators we now have.

Kerry may have been misquoted (as opposed to mis-spun). If so, much of thread may be irrelevant.

If he was quoted correctly, he is probably correct on the facts. We do have a lot of low info voters. Is that because they are inattentive, or because so much disinformation, infotainment and slanting going on? Probably some combination..

Do more low info voters prefer Republicans? I believe so, but have no proof.

Did Republicans consolidate and control media? Yes. Was it impossible for Dems to have prevented that by law or by buying up (or starting) media? Probably not.

Are Republicans better at messaging and, yes, sloganeering? Probably, if our message is so muth better than theirs. Can Democrats surpass them? Why not, if, on the whole, we are smarter? (Republicans are, IMO, also MUCH better at organizing from almost the ground up and at getting kids while young. No clue why Dems have not done better in those 2 areas.)

Even if true, was saying this now in this way politically the best thing to do (assuming he did say it)? I don't see why it would be.

[ProSense]

256. Comically misleading link-baiting headline of the day

Greg Sargent

* Comically misleading link-baiting headline of the day: From The Hill:

Kerry blames out-of-touch voters for Democrats' midterm image troubles

That's based on this quote from John Kerry: "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening." And Kerry goes on to say it's "appropriate" that public anger is directed at Washington.

Also: Alex Burns reports that the NRSC will today demand that Dem Senate candidates say whether they agree with Kerry.

This ought to be fun.

[Francesca9]

259. very insightfully analyzed

[Trajan]

250. Voters are just as ignorant as they have ever been ...

Politicians like Kerry and his ilk need to KNOW how to communicate with ignorant voters ...

Kennedy knew ... FDR knew ... Truman knew .... Hell, even Clinton knew ....

You think they listen to slogans ? ... then FUCKING SLOGANEER THEM !

It's not their fault that YOU haven't captured their ignorant imaginations .. it's YOUR fault ...

[truthisfreedom]

252. I agree. We need to drive the message home again and again, especially the economic

Improvements. Seriously. The thugs have been lying and getting away with it for far too long.

[ProSense]

255. And to prove that Kerry was right:

Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Most Influential In Political Debate

[JoeyTrib]

258. "The recession is over."

Now there's outta touch.

[Vidar]

260. Normally, you do pretty well John, but you popped that one up right into the pitcher's glove.

[Demeter]

262. It's the In Touch Voters One Has to Watch Out For

because they talk. Factually.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

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

[MisterP]

271. howzabout half-liberal, aristocratic politicos who voted for the IWR

and have a cool million invested in the military industry

what, too soon?