Dissatisfied with Kerry's campaign and want to help? http://johnkerry.com

[bigtree]

I don't think that those who are urging Kerry to do more in this or that are giving him enough credit for what he is achieving so far. He won't be able to be all things to all people in this campaign. I personally don't think he should try. As ridiculous and infuriating as defenders of Kerry, like me, sound to some, detractors who bitch and moan about style, inflection, quibble over stuff like whether he said mislead or lie, or bemoan him for not adopting their own strident or pointed rhetoric, infuriate folks like me who are as committed to Democratic principles as anyone on this board, and who feel Kerry is setting just the right tone at this point in the campaign.

I also take issue with open grousing about the tenor or timber of how Kerry presents himself. And the endless complaints about some position he took on some past issue that he won't repudiate, only serve to fuel the opposition and divide our own party.

These same detractors will bitch and moan about a media that they claim distorts and then turn right around and blame Kerry for not getting his message out. I was completely turned off by the comments tonight after the Hardball appearance that Kerry should display that fighting attitude more often. I can't help but feel that these folks don't have the interest in him to actually follow what Kerry says every day or how know anything about how he conducts himself, every day.

I hear these same folks complain about a single point on his site or in a speech and completely ignore 99% of the rest of his effort or words. Look at Kerry's site. Do a search on the issues that concern you. Look up his speeches. Watch his videos. Google his name.

There is an eloquence and depth in John Kerry's efforts that surpasses any nominee in my lifetime. The only peer that comes to my mind that matches his ability and commitment is Robert Kennedy.

It's no surprise to me, that those who actually know him think the world of our candidate. And I will not drag his good name into some public chastising. That is the most destructive effort that I can imagine. I won't give quarter to those who spew invectives about John Kerry while claiming their support. I won't give quarter to those who only claim to support him as a 'lesser evil' to Bush.

I challenge everyone to reflect on those who were left behind in the campaign so far and try to understand that John Kerry's success has much more to do with the excellent campaign he has run so far than with 'sheeple' or some oblique notion of electibility. I challenge everyone to put aside their differences and openly pull out all stops for John, and leave the griping to republicans.

Have a problem with Kerry's campaign and actually want to help? http://johnkerry.com They are anxious to hear from you at his site or at any of his headquarters; less anxious to hear from you in your public grousing. Try to understand those of us who would rather focus our fire at Bush than openly quibble on this board about his percieved shortcomings with folks who claim they want John Kerry to win.


Learn more about Senator Kerry at his website:
http://www.johnkerry.com

Email John Kerry's presidential campaign at [e-mail]

Email Senator Kerry's campaign teams at [e-mail] (Boston headquarters) or [e-mail] (Washington D.C. headquarters).

View Kerry's record at his official senatorial website:
http://www.senate.gov/~kerry/

Or email the senator's office directly at [e-mail]
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/contact_email.html

There is a grassroots "Independents for John Kerry" campaign at:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/

There is now a grassroots "Southerners for Kerry" campaign at:
http://www.southernersforkerry.com/

There is a grassroots "Fire Fighters for Kerry" campaign at:
http://www.firefightersforkerry.org/

John Kerry on the Issues
http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Arab American Institute: On the issues:
Israel and Palestine
Civil Liberties
Immigration
US-Arab Relations
http://www.aaiusa.org/kerry.htm#Isr

Quotes
http://www.aaiusa.org/kerry_quotes.htm

Kerry's responses to AAI's Candidate Questionnaire
http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/Kerry_questionnaire.pdf

AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE: Views on the Middle East
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerry.html

Contact the campaign:
John Kerry for President, Inc.
519 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: [phone]
www.johnkerry.com

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
D-Bunking Negative Attacks on Kerry
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/jk-rumors.html

John Forbes Kerry - Disinfopedia
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry

John Kerry - Wikipedia
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kerry

Encyclopedia: John Kerry
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/John-Kerry

Project Vote Smart - Senator Kerry - Speeches and Public Statements
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=S0421103

BOOKS BY KERRY
A CALL TO SERVICE
by John Kerry ©2003
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/call-to-service.html

Kerry formally introduces himself to the nation.
The NEW WAR
by John Kerry ©1998
Insightful warning for a Nation pre 9/11
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684846144/photostoo-20

BOOKS ABOUT KERRY
Tour of Duty
by Douglas Brinkley
©2004
John Kerry and the Vietnam
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060565233/photostoo-20

Senator John Kerry - American Windsurfer - A Windsurfer in the
WHITE HOUSE?
http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5a.html

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry
http://www.greene.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm

The BCCI Affair
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci

GET INVOLVED: (from Independents for Kerry)

Volunteer for John Kerry
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/volunteer-for-kerry.html

Downloads: pdf's and Video
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/issues/index.php?category_id=871

Take Action: Help elect John
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/electjohn/index.php

Voter Soundoff Your comments
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/independents/index.php?category_id=794

Ex-Pats, Americans Overseas: How to Vote
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ex-pats.html

NEWS / ISSUES

Disproving John Kerry Myths, Rumors, Fakes, Hoaxes, Fabricated Photos http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/jk-rumors.html

Green Party for John Kerry
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/greensforkerry.html

Profile: John Kerry at a Glance
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/info/index.php

George W. Bush vs John Kerry
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/bush-vs-kerry.html

Kerry on the Economy
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry_economy.html

Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

More John Kerry Links
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/john_kerry.html

John Kerry Web Tools
Kerry Core - Build your own contributions page
https://contribute.johnkerry.com/kerrycore/

Kerry Connector - Locate or host a Kerry event near you
http://www.kerryconnector.com/

[Kahuna]

1. Great post! I agree 100%! Open grousing is bound to show up...

in the media. We don't need that. I suspect that many who do the open grousing would really like to see their names heard or read in the media. It is so simple to direct any suggestions or complaints directly to the Kerry campaign where they would do the most good.

You are also right that Kerry cannot and should not try to be all things to all people. That would be a disastor in the making. The best thing for him to do is be himself. Pandering is always a losing proposition and leads to being labeled a "waffler." Go Kerry!

[Tellurian]

77. Rove is a has been. A one trick pony!

He is a genius at work when he is under cover and nobodys looking. A master of entrapment. Of course having all the resources in the world in his quiver doesn't hurt either.

What hurts them the most is the expose factor...

The Truth is a bullseye every time.

There is enough Truth out there to do serious damage without breaking a sweat or getting your hands dirty.

Release the hounds!

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

106. Where the fuck did I say I didn't support Kerry?

I'm voting for the guy. What the fuck more do you want?

Ahhh, I see. I won't take the blue pill so you're pissed because I see the reality of what's happening. KERRY HAS FUCKED UP. HE SCREWED THE POOCH!

Joe sixpack sees Kerry as a lying waffler because Kerry let Rove define him that way. Face reality, man and take off the rose colored glasses.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

2. I honestly believe Kerry is going to lose badly

Rove has defined him and the fence sitters won't forget the definition. When all is said and done, fence sitters tend to stick with the evil they know over the evil they don't know.

Call me pessimistic, but I honestly believe it's all over but the crying.

[ulTRAX]

3. classic example of self-fulfilling prophecy

Walt Starr: "I honestly believe Kerry is going to lose badly. Rove has defined him and the fence sitters won't forget the definition. When all is said and done, fence sitters tend to stick with the evil they know over the evil they don't know.
Call me pessimistic, but I honestly believe it's all over but the crying."

Thanks for a perfect example of self-fulfilling prophecy. You give up... sit on your hands and whine, then when you lose, you say "see, I said it was all hopeless" and pat yourself on the back for being so perceptive.

What Kerry has to do is out-Rove Rove.

[Walt Starr]

6. Kerry will never out Rove Rove

Kerry has let Rove define him. It's a done deal. Kerry is a flip flopping lying liar, I know it's so they said it on CNN and Fox News.

While Rove has been defining Kerry, Kerry has done NOTHING, NADA, BUPKISS!!!

It's too late now just like it was too late to get the truth out about Al Gore and the internet. It's all over but the crying.

[Anjisan]

10. Walt's right

Kerry has run a miserable campaign. Edwards or Dean would've been much stronger against Bush. Kerry has put forth no coherent plan or reasonable alternatives. He just reacts to Bush attacks.

[Dookus]

15. Sorry

Walt couldn't be more wrong.

He believes that only Kerry can be defined by Karl Rove, but that somehow Edwards or Dean would be immune from such attacks.

Such a position is, on its face, ridiculous. Any Democratic candidate would be "defined" by Karl Rove - unfortunately Rove's definition of Kerry doesn't resonate with Americans.

70 million dollars in attack ads have done NOTHING to harm Kerry. Dean, if we believe his supporters, was done in by ONE commercial run a couple times in Iowa.

I'm resigned to the fact that the whiners, the sore losers, the bitter, will never get behind Kerry. So be it. Even Gandhi couldn't unite today's Democrats. We'll just plow ahead and win despite the nay-sayers who do whatever they can to destroy Kerry simply so they can say "I told you so" in November.

[Walt Starr]

18. Any other candidate could have gotten into the same situation

All it takes is sitting on their asses letting Rove do the defining, just like Kerry did all March and April.

[Dookus]

20. Nonsense...

ANY candidate would be attacked by Rove. ANY candidate would be "defined" by Rove, as you put it.

Here's an example: Kerry took a skiing vacation. People here went nuts because it allowed Rove to "define" him. But I asked then, and ask now, WHAT kind of vacation could Kerry have taken that wouldn't have been attacked by Rove? You tell me where he could've gone and what he could've done, and I'll tell you how Rove would've attacked.

Do you believe Rove would NOT attack Dean? That's silly.

And btw... Kerry *IS* fighting back. Did you see his release yesterday about Bush's military service? Have you read or listened to any of his stump speeches?

The whole idea that only Kerry is susceptible to Republican attacks is bullshit.

[Walt Starr]

21. He should have been working and not taking a vacation at that critical jun

He couyld not do a worse job if he were planning on losing in November.

[Dookus]

22. more nonsense...

he just won a grueling months-long battle for the nomination. He has a schedule that would likely kill either of us. He had many months to go before the GE. A one-week break was in no way unreasonable.

I know you think Dean is superman, but he, too, would've taken a vacation. Fortunately, the voters gave him one.

[Walt Starr]

28. Okay, far be it for me to blow the cover on the one you worship

I won't even come on here come Novmeber 3rd saying I told you so. Just remember what I said now on that day.

[Dookus]

29. Why don't you go to the other site

and spew your anti-Kerry crap?

As you may remember, Kerry was NOT my first choice. But he's the nominee now, and it's time to move on instead of whining and bitching about the colossal failure of your candidate.

[Walt Starr]

31. I have mentioned nobody but Kerry

This is about Kerry's failings as a candidate, and believe me, in the real world Kerry is failing miserably.

[Dookus]

33. tell me

how the fuck is he failing?

He's tied with an incumbent president in wartime. Said president just dumped 70 million on negative ads against Kerry to NO effect whatsoever.

The election is over 6 months away. The conventions are months away. WHY do you think Kerry MUST be leading at this point or else he's a failure?

[Walt Starr]

35. No effect other than to define Kerry the way they wanted to define him

and believe me, it is coming back to haunt him. Kerry is a lying waffler, they say so on CNN so it must be true.

Same way Al Gore was defined by Rove in 2000. It's all over because there is no way Kerry can get out ahead of the definition now and the swing voters are the ones who have had Kerry defined for them by Rove.

My prediction: Bush wins by 4% of the popular vote on November 2nd.

[Dookus]

38. and again

how would the superhero Dean NOT be tagged by Rove et. al. as a hotheaded lunatic with poor impulse control?

[Walt Starr]

40. Why are you bringing up Dean?

Dean has absolutely nothing to do with this. Kerry is the candidate and Kerry is the one who is failing miserably.

[Dookus]

45. It's quite simple

You keep asserting that Kerry is failing simply because he's being attacked by the Bush campaign.

I assert that ANY Democratic candidate would be attacked. The difference is that Kerry fights back and the attacks are NOT working (as evidenced by his success in the polls despite a 70 million dollar attack campaign against him).

ANY candidate would be attacked. Some, like Dean, would not survive such attacks nearly as well as Kerry has.

I know you want Kerry to lose so you can feel vindicated for supporting a loser. So be it. The fact is Kerry is NOT in any way failing, despite your deep desire for that to be so.

[Walt Starr]

49. Nope, you have assessed what I am saying completely wrong

I am saying Kerry is failing becauuse he is being attacked AND IOS DOING NOTHING EFFECTIVE TO COUNTER THE ATTACKS!

Get with the program and please stop putting words in my mouth.

[Dookus]

54. well if that's your argument

then it's simply not based in reality.

[Walt Starr]

56. We'll see come November 2

[sangh0]

63. "AND IS DOING NOTHING EFFECTIVE TO COUNTER THE ATTACKS"

Did Dean "do nothing effective to counter the attacks"?

I think you would say that Dean did fight back, and the evidence shows that Dean was beaten anyway, and Kerry won, so your claim that Kerry should do what Dean did and fight back the way Dean did is ridiculous on it's face.

[Walt Starr]

65. WTF does Dean have to do with anything?

Dean is not the candidate., Kerry is. This is about Kerry.

[sangh0]

82. Dean fought back, and you supported it

And Dean lost.

You keep claiming that Kerry needs to fight back, but you have yet to show how that is a winning strategy. IOW, Dean did what you thought was the way to win, and he lost. Now you suggest that Kerry, who won, should do what Dean, who lost, did.

You backed the wrong horse, so your judgement is questionable. You supported his tactics, which resulted in his lost, which again calls your judgment into question. Now, you say Kerry should asopt Dean's losing tactics.

And we're supposed to respect your fine judgement after it's been proven to be questionable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1486785&mesg_id=1488021&page=

You expect us to treat you as if your were some sort of authority whose predictions should be treated with respect. You dont seem to realize that your nothing more than "some guy on the Internet"

[Walt Starr]

84. Major strawman argument

Your argument holds no water. Dean defined Dean. Kerry did not define Dean. Dean lost.

Rove has defined Kerry. It is too late for Kerry to do anything to counter that definition.

What you are doing isn't comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing horses to bridges.

[sangh0]

91. Rove defined Dean

Now you want Kerry to use Dean's ineffective and losing strategy.

[Walt Starr]

94. Strawman

Rove did nothing of the sort.

[sangh0]

97. Giving up?

Your "straw man" repetitions look like capitulations. You don't even seem to know what "straw man" means

[Walt Starr]

99. I'll stop repeating "strawman"

when you stop offering them up as valid debating points.

[sangh0]

102. Please identify the straw man

I haven't used one. Your "royal" pronouncements (ex "Rove defined Kerry", "Kerry will lose", etc) are believed by no one.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

110. IOW "none"

You just like repeating phrases you dont understand when you run out of arguments.

[Walt Starr]

112. When you brought Dean into the issue

You immediately built a strawman.

[sangh0]

115. You brought Clinton into the issue long before I raised Dean

Also, it wasn't me who brought Dean in. It was another poster. You just claimed Dean is irrelevant because we're talking about Kerry, but for some reason, that didn't matter when you brought Clinton into it.

SO please try to explain why Kerry (who won) should listen to a supporter of Dean (who lost) who suggest that Kerry (who won) should adopt Dean's (who lost) tactics?

[Walt Starr]

117. In reference to general election issues

As far as I've seen, Dean has never been a presidential candidate in any general election.

[sangh0]

119. SO what?

You said Dean wasn't relevant because we were talking about Kerry. You said nothing about it being a GE or a primary. You only raise that point now that your hypocritical arguments (it's hypocritical to say we can't talk about Dean, but you can talk about Clinton) have been revealed

[Walt Starr]

134. You raised a strawman

We're discussing the general election and you built a strawman based on primary races.

Again, you're comparing horses to bridges.

[sangh0]

145. I thought we were talking about Kerry. Now we're talking about GE's

Your story changes with every post. Before, we couldn't talk about Dean because we were talking about Kerry. Now, we're talking about GE's (and not Kerry), so it's OK if YOU talk about Clinton.

[Walt Starr]

155. This entire thread was about John Kerry in the GE

Pulling strawman arguments about Dean out of thin air notwithstanding.

[sangh0]

156. No it wasn't

I see nothing that limits the discussion to the GE. Maybe you'd like to share you hallucinations with the rest of us.

[sangh0]

159. Even the initial post refers indirectly to the primaries

I challenge everyone to reflect on those who were left behind in the campaign so far and try to understand that John Kerry's success has much more to do with the excellent campaign he has run so far than with 'sheeple' or some oblique notion of electibility. I challenge everyone to put aside their differences and openly pull out all stops for John, and leave the griping to republicans.

The "successes" that this quote refers to occurred in the primaries. Also, the links include articles that were written during Kerry's primary run, and some of those documents refer to the primary race. This thread has never been limited to the GE, and you just made that up because you had no reason for hypocritically bringing in Clinton while complaining when others brought up Dean

[JI7]

36. didn't Dean run back to Vermont after losing the first primary ?

didn't dean run back to vermont after losing new hampshire ? and i remember right before some of the primary elections he was back in vermont also. and they are complaining about kerry taking a few days off right after he became the presumed nominee and 7-8 months before the election takes place ? hahahha

actually, i agree that some of these are people who want kerry to lose so they can say "i told you so".

[Walt Starr]

39. WTF does Dean have to do with anything?

Dean is not the candidate. Kerry is. Kerry is failing.

[JI7]

44. Kerry succeded in kicking Dean's ass, Dean led in polls once also

but Kerry led when it really counted. and bill clinton was behind at this time, far more behind than john kerry is in the polls. in fact bill clinton was in third place. he was behind bush and perot this time in 1992.

and i bring dean up because you claim kerry is a bad candidate and the things happening to kerry would not have happened to others (specifically dean) when the primary proved that dean failed already.

[Walt Starr]

47. And Bush I did absolutely nothing to "define" Clinton

Clinton defined Dole early in the race and kicked his ass profusely.

Primaries have absolutely nothing to do with the general election. Kerry is a lying waffler, so says CNN. You cannot change that perception now., It is out there, Rove succeeded in defining Kerry and it's going to stick all the way through to November.

It is hard to overcome the "two evils" argument and Rove has successfully made this a choice of "two evils". When faced with that choice, the fence sitters almost always go with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't know.

Rove has us in a position of checkmate in five moves. There is nothing that can be done to stop it short of pictures of Asshole* having sex with a three year old boy, and even that may not stop the inevitable.

Now, all I am concentrating on is the Senate and Congressional races occurring locally. I may have some effect on those. I've already written off the white house.

[sangh0]

66. Avoid talking about Dean. Talk about Clinton, instead

"Distract with Clinton" is a tactic Dems don't use very often.

[Walt Starr]

67. WTF does Dean have to do with anything.

Last time I checked, Kerry was the nominee.

do you know something I don't? This is all about Kerry because Kerry is the candidate that Rove has been defining.

[sangh0]

85. I know lots of things you don't

I know that your candidate, Dean, lost.

I know that your candidate, Dean, pursued the same strategy that you are advocating for Kerry, and I know that Dean lost using that strategy.

I know that Kerry won.

I also know that Kerry (who won) won without using the strategy that Dean, who lost, used.

[Walt Starr]

88. Strawman

You are talking about the primaries. I am talking about a general election.

You're comparing horses to bridges.

[sangh0]

101. It's still the primaries

and you had no problem talking about the primaries up til now. You only object to an argument when it's convenient for you. You objected to my talking about Dean, when you had no problem talking about Clinton.

[Walt Starr]

116. Um. Maybe you don't pay attantion to the news

Kerry has the nomination all sewn up. The primaries are over for all intents and purposes.

[sangh0]

123. More avoiding the issue

You only addressed one point, in order to avoid the others.

you had no problem talking about the primaries up til now. You only object to an argument when it's convenient for you. You objected to my talking about Dean, when you had no problem talking about Clinton

is what I said earlier. You made no attempt to defend the hypocritical way you talked about primaries when it was convenient, and the hypocritical way you talked about Clinton, and only objected when someone else did similar.

And for all of your blather about "GE, not primaries", you still haven't explained why that's even relevant.

[Walt Starr]

137. I stated nothing about the primaries in this thread

The primaries are over. I suggest you get over it as I have.

[sangh0]

146. Sure you did

When we were talking about Dean. Also, you still haven't explained why the difference between GE's and primaries makes a difference in this discussion. I see think primary elections are relevant to this discussion.

[Walt Starr]

152. You were the one talking about Dean, not me

Dean is irrelevent to this discussion. Why do you continue with the strawman argument?

[sangh0]

161. The primaries were mentioned in the first post

I challenge everyone to reflect on those who were left behind in the campaign so far and try to understand that John Kerry's success has much more to do with the excellent campaign he has run so far than with 'sheeple' or some oblique notion of electibility. I challenge everyone to put aside their differences and openly pull out all stops for John, and leave the griping to republicans.

The successes referred to are the ones Kerry had in the primaries. The initial poster cited those successes to show that Kerry's tactics, for all the criticism you have thrown at them, work better than the tactics that caused Dean to lose. This thread has never been limited to talk about the GE. You just made that up.

[sangh0]

86. I know a lot of things you don't

I know that your candidate, Dean, lost.

I know that your candidate, Dean, pursued the same strategy that you are advocating for Kerry, and I know that Dean lost using that strategy.

I know that Kerry won.

I also know that Kerry (who won) won without using the strategy that Dean, who lost, used.

Last time I checked, Kerry was the nominee.

I see, we're talking about Kerry so we can't talk about Dean, but we can talk about Clinton.

[Walt Starr]

90. Ibid

n/t

[sangh0]

95. Wow! What a defense!

Can't say I blame you for not even trying.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

103. ahh, a personal attack

a sure sign you're running out of arguments

[Walt Starr]

107. No personal attack

You repeated yourself. I took a shorcut to repeat my response.

[dsc]

89. That is baldly false

Kerry's negatives have risen in every single state in which those ads ran. Furthermore, Kerry should have gained on Bush during this time given the news, but instead he either stayed the same or dropped depending on the poll. The effect of the ads has been maked by the bad news for Bush, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an effect.

[Walt Starr]

92. Plus, the definition is out there

It is too late to counter it. The fence sitters all know, Kerry is a lying waffler.

[dsc]

114. I actually disagree with you on that

Clinton was largly defined as a draft dodging skirt chaser and won anyway. But Kerry isn't doing a good job of coutering and you are 100% correct in your assessment of the current swing voter impression of Kerry. I had a very startling experience at a get together of my sister and some of her coworkers. They all strongly disliked Bush, some to the point of calling him a liar. They all were unalterably opposed to the Iraq War, yet not one is yet a Kerry voter. And they all give reasons such as waffler or not knowing what Kerry stands for as to why. This is fixable, but it must be fixed.

[Walt Starr]

118. Okay, you've convinced me it can be fixed

But you must admit, we are quickly running out of time to fix it.

[dsc]

125. Yes, we are

That is why I have posted somewhat similar criticism. I sincerely hope that the people who are actually in his campaign are more receptive to critcism than the people here. That was one huge problem with the Dukakis campaign. No one could tell them anything.

[Anjisan]

142. I don't think so.

Edwards, in particular, doesn't have the weaknesses that Kerry does. He'd have made a wonderful candidate to market as a young JFK. From a poor family, caring, compassionate, Edwards would've presented a much greater challenge for Rove to smear.

Kerry just has too damn much baggage. Consider this, not since Warren Harding has a senator been elected directly to the Presidency. The reason for this is that any senator, but particularly one with many years of service, have made so many deals to get their bills passed that it's impossible for them not to be portrayed as indecisive. That's exactly what's happened with Kerry. Dean and Edwards would've been pretty much immune to such an attack.

[dsc]

176. Some quibbles

First Kennedy was a Senator when he got elected. Though one with a very few years. Second, Edwards is a Senator now so he would have under your theory some of the same problems. He also was a trial lawyer which can be demonized. Dean would have been demonized as a loose cannon. The problem here isn't the existance of an attack but a lack of good response. I would hope that Dean or Edwards would have done better, though Kerry is starting to shape up a little.

[Anjisan]

180. Mea culpa

Sorry. I forgot about Kennedy. But the similarity between him and Edwards (both having few years) is exactly what I'm talking about. Neither had (has) much senatorial baggage to defend. They didn't serve for decades and have tons of "deals" to defend. They have just enough to get experience, not enough to have something to castigate.

And I really don't think Edward's record as a lawyer will be all that much of a big deal. How many senators and congressmen are lawyers? Hundreds. People are accustomed to voting for lawyers, after all, they make the LAW.

No, IMO, Edwards would've made a MUCH better candidate for us. We could've marketed him like a reincarnation of JFK and he'd have inspired the nation.

As for Kerry shaping up, how? He's done nothing but respond to Republican attacks. A man constantly on the defensive is a lost cause. Every attack he's made has backfired. Just look at what happened when Kerry complained about Bush's military records. Kerry screamed about those and Bush released them. Now Kerry won't release all of HIS. Who got the worst of that exchange? Who do you think the American people believe wasn't honest? What idiot would challege his opponent to do something that he wasn't willing to do himself? Kerry has no clue and he'll lose in November for sure. We need to get somebody in there who can BEAT BUSH instead of sticking with a sure loser.

[Kahuna]

23. Walt is not right. Forget Edwards and Dean. They lost. ...

Kerry is the nominee and he is doing a good job. Most people aren't paying attention right now. Kerry can't possibly go tit for tat with Bush. bush get's more media coverage and that's just the fact. If Kerry can remain at par with bush LIKE HE IS NOW, until after the convention, we are in good shape.

Even if Walt has a legitimate point, it's counterproductive to post those comments here in public. The media is trolling for evidence that we are uncommitted and running scared. This type of post (Kerry will lose) is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Walt Starr]

37. Who said anything about Dean or Edwards?

Oh yeah, Kahuna was the person who brought them up. Spare me, they have nothing to do with anything any longer. Kerry's the candidate and Kerry's the one failing miserably.

[ulTRAX]

83. Kerry HAS run a terrible campaign but Walt's wrong that it's over

There's 6 full months before the election. There's a range of things Kerry can do.

When Bush was down in the 2000 primaries he reinvented himself. Kerry could find his own message instead of being Bush lite... He could to do a "hail Mary" play to grab some GOP votes... or make a deal with Nader to firm up the base. He could position himself better on the issues. He could better play the hand that won't change in 04: Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.

ALL of this has been discussed here. A month ago when I was down on the Kerry campaign I urged the DU to create an advice for Kerry forum to concentrate all our ideas.... to develop the DU's immense potential to be a progressive think tank for the average person. The DU instead put up state boards.

[Anjisan]

144. No.

Kerry is toast. It'll just get worse. When Bush starts running ads about Kerry's remarks after Vietnam, it'll all be over.

We need to draft Hillary at the Convention. She hasn't lost any primaries to anybody and she's the only one who could beat Bush right now.

[bigtree]

151. Quiz for Anjisan

Which remarks after Vietnam do you think can't be defended and why?

[Anjisan]

179. Defended?

What do you mean by "defended"? Kerry made comments to the effect that Americans had slaughtered Vietnamese, cut off ears, noses, etc., but Kerry had no knowledge of these events other than second-hand.

Now one might be able to prove that these things happened, but in the context of a campaign, that's immaterial. Kerry can't say that HE saw these things so what he presented as a veteran in front of a house committee was just heresay evidence. Rove will eat him alive with such ammunition.

Can you see the commercial? "A young John Kerry sitting at a table facing the committee and below the screen rolls, "John Kerry said that American servicemen mutilated bodies, killed women and children as well as committted other atrocities, but John Kerry never witnessed our brave soldiers doing anything other than the job they were sent to do. Do you think that a man who hates the military like John Kerry should be Commander-in-Chief? We don't.

Vote George Bush."

Now, tell me how Rove could do something like that with Edwards or Dean? No ammunition at all. He'd have to find something else to slander.

[sandnsea]

13. Great job Walt!!

Bring out the 1 post disruptors to help spread the propaganda and discourage or divide the Democratic Party so they won't work to win. Excellent! Rove couldn't ask for a better helper than you.

[Walt Starr]

19. Walt to sandnsea

Wake up and smell the coffee. Kerry couldn't do a worse job if he were intentiuonally trying to throw the god damn election.

[Kahuna]

25. And you're an authority on this, how?

:eyes: You must remember the odds Kerry overcame to win the nomination. He had been counted out from the beginning. Look who is the nominee now. The lesson to be learned: Never count Kerry out.

[Walt Starr]

51. All I ask is you remember what I've said

November 3, 2004.

Then remember it well on January 20, 2005.

[ACK]

53. Great are you saying you are calling it?

Instead of working to make sure that the only viable alternative to fascism succeeds, you are betting the bank so to speak on him failing.

The Wiemer Germans would have loved you man in the days of the rise of nazism. You sound like one of their "good german" boys.

+

[Walt Starr]

55. I am saying I have completely given up all hope of regaining the WH

I'm concentrating on The two federal level elections that still have some hope. The 13th Illinois congressional District race and the Illinois Senate race.

I have no hope of a Kerry victory now. None whatsoever. I'll vote for him, but I won't waste any more effort on it.

[sangh0]

68. That is obviously untrue

"I am saying I have completely given up all hope of regaining the WH"

And yet, you post about the Presidential election on a daily basis, even though you have "given up all hope"

Your posts say one thing, but your actions say otherwise

[Walt Starr]

72. Hmmm, please pull my posts about the presidential election from yesterday

and the day before, and the day before.

I want links, thank you.

[sangh0]

87. I'll fulfill your requests

when you fulfill mine

[Walt Starr]

96. Translation

walt Starr made no posts about the presidential campaign yesterday.

Or the day before.

Or the day before.

[sangh0]

105. That's easily proven to be untrue

by running a simple search. I invite anyone interested to do so

[Walt Starr]

113. Links please.

I'm waiting.

[sangh0]

124. Keep waiting

.

[Walt Starr]

133. So, you gonna take back what you said?

Or put up the links?

Your choice, no links means I've showed your statement for what it is.

[sangh0]

147. Keep waiting

.

[Anjisan]

143. Of course he was.

>>> " You must remember the odds Kerry overcame to win the nomination. He had been counted out from the beginning. Look who is the nominee now. The lesson to be learned: Never count Kerry out."

Kerry was counted out for good reason. He wasn't nearly as dynamic and attractive as Dean was. Dean captured the hearts of millions of people who'd never been involved in politics at all. His problem was that once he became the front runner, he wasn't experienced enough in rough-n-tumble politics to avoid being portrayed as a wild-eyed lunatic. When that happened, people just voted for the "safe" guy; which was Kerry. He got the nomination by default, not because he was the best candidate.

[ACK]

26. Give me a break

The man is running neck and neck against an incumbent in the middle of a war.

In terms of polls, he is doing better than Clinton in '92 ever thought of doing and the convention has not even started yet.

Can he do even better? Oh yes and is he the perfect nominee in my opinion, no. Is he doing miserable? Hell no.

I am awake and do smell the coffee I can also smell a lot of sour grapes too.

Bush has burnt through a ton of money and gotten very little bounce.

Alarmists ... hand wringing ...

Are you ready to pull out the pink tutu and dance with the wimp Daschle or are you going to fight?

+

[Walt Starr]

32. Kerry's the one dancing with Daschle

"Kinder and Gentler" doesn't fly in politics these days. Delude yourself all you want, Kerry is doing a miserable job.

[ACK]

43. You are the one that is quite deluded

Kerry is the one who said on the medal flack that it was not even clear that Bush served out his National Guard duty.

He gave a good solid interview on Hardball.

Once again you totallly ignore the fact that this early in the game he is doing historically speaking very good against an incumbent.

You are ignoring how much money Bush has burnt through to keep almost no bounce in the polls and according to a poll today that is evaporating fast.

Oh yes, on top of that, he is raising a lot of money for a Democrat.

Doomsayers and sour grapes. That is what I hear from you.

[Walt Starr]

58. And Every fence sitter I know says

Kerry is a lying waffler. Bush is bad, but they cannot trust Kerry in this world.

The fence sitters will decide this thing.

[sangh0]

127. LOL!

And exactly how many "fence sitters" do you know?

[Walt Starr]

138. How many do you know?

n/t

[sandnsea]

46. Yeah, you called the primaries right too

I don't know what it will take for people on DU to understand. America is not a socialist country. Americans do not want far left policies. If Kerry ran the way people around here wanted him to, he'd have 30% of the vote.

He's doing very well. He's doing better than most challengers have done at this point in the campaign. NH, OH & FL have Kerry leading. If we pick up the rest of the 2000 states, that's the win. Ohio went Bush 50-46 in 2000 and Kerry is leading. If winning isn't enough for you, I don't know what more Kerry could possibly do.

[Walt Starr]

52. I am not even saying a god damned thing about his stances!

HE IS NOT FIGHTING BACK! HE HAS ALLOWED ROVE TO DEFINE HIM FOR THE FENCE SITTERS! I could give a shit about his stated policies. He has blown the election because the perception out there with every fence sitter I know is, "Bush is bad, but Kerry is a liar and a waffler. It's a choice of two evils and I have to go with the devil I know. With terrorism, I cannot afford to take a chance on the devil I don't know."

How fucking more clear can I be?

[ACK]

57. He is fighting back you are NOT listening

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

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

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

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

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

+

[Walt Starr]

59. If he were really fighting back

All of the fence sitters I know would still be considering him.

They all, to a person, consider Kerry to be a lying waffler and will grudgingly vote for Bush or will stay home.

[ACK]

61. In Conservative VA seeing a different story

A lot of Raygun Dems who converted to the Republican party moving back over because of how much Bush scares them and they are disgusted with the way Bush has tried to trash Kerry.

So you don't even care if the man defends himself and fights back. It only matters that a couple "fence sitter" Republicans you know are leaning Bush. Good. That gives me confidence.

[Walt Starr]

Putting words into my mouth

won't work.

The fence sitters I know voted for Gore in 2000. They voted for Clinton in '96 and voted for Pappy in '92.

Go figure.

[ACK]

71. Well there you go

'92 did not work out for them.

Neither will 2004.

Show some damn spine man its freaking April for goodness sakes.

Defeatist talk! You are living up to every wuss, spineless stereotype of a liberal that the right-wing thugs put out. Geez.

[Walt Starr]

74. I've got spine

I'm preparing myself, my family, my home, and my business life for the inevitable loss of freedom to come due to John Kerry's failings.

Facing the reality of what is about to be forced on the world takes a lot of spine.

[ACK]

104. That is not spine that is defeatism

Don't fight the good fight.

Declare defeat before the race is even begun to run.

I know what is at stake and I will contribute and get out the vote and volunteer and fight.

Gore did win the popular vote and he ran the high pinnacle of boring tired campaigns.

There is hope. I will not lay down and just let this happen.

+

[Walt Starr]

111. Nope, it's facing the reality of the situation

And damnit, I'll not bet my life and the lives of my family on false hope.

[sandnsea]

139. I disagree, try this on for size

Before Kerry can lamblast Bush, people have to know him and trust him. That's just the way it is for any challenger. If he started ranting and raving from the beginning, they'd just be framing him as another angry Democrat with no plans. And the fence sitters would disregard EVERYTHING he had to say against Bush clear up until the election.

By NOT playing that game, he is actually framing himself. As a leader, as a President. Just like he did in the primaries. So when he gains the full confidence of the people, and THEN lamblasts Bush, people will listen. Because they'll have observed for a good length of time that he doesn't engage in partisan smear campaign tactics.

It's a good strategy and if people would just understand it and help get him introduced FASTER, by getting out there and working for him, he could lamblast Bush SOONER.

Get it?

[Walt Starr]

140. It could have worked. I think it's too late now

Now Kerry has to play catch up because he's been defined by the opposition. It will cost much more in money to defend against that definition than if he had gotten in front of things and defined himself coming out of his primary victories.

He waited. Okay, he may be able to overvcome it, but time is running out fast and I see him still doing nothing to overcome the definition of a lying waffler.

[sandnsea]

160. No, he's still introducing himself

Most of the crap that's being run now won't even be remembered in November. He's still introducing himself to the people, at the local level, particularly in the battleground states. And they're telling their friends who are telling their friends. He'll keep a laser beam on this strategy and then in October & November, when people are really listening, he'll hammer away at Bush and those swing voters will believe him. Because they'll have seen him as an honest person who wants to discuss the issues and who has real plans and vision for the future, not just a smear campaigner.

That's EXACTLY how he won Iowa.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Not to be unkind or anything, but if you hadn't posted that, the world

would be a better place.

[Walt Starr]

7. Speaking truth is important

Sorry I couldn't help make the world more like what Polyanna thinks it is.

[Kahuna]

27. "Perception" is not truth. It is your perception as seen exclusively..

through your eyes. That doesn't make it the truth.

[Walt Starr]

34. I'm not the only one seeing things this way

In fact, I'd say only hardcore Democrats have the rose colored glasses about this candidacy in place.

[Kahuna]

5. Gee, thanks Walt..

:eyes: That's all we need is for some media wise ass to pick up your remarks and repeat them in screaming headlines: DEMS UNCERTAIN ABOUT KERRY. But, you'll be famous though, right?

[Walt Starr]

8. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you seriously think anything I post on DU has any imprtance whatsoever in the political climate of America, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya!

[HFishbine]

11. BREAKING: Walt Star to Kerry: "Pick a Democrat for VP"

Film at eleven.

[Walt Starr]

42. It would be nice

My prediction, he picks a DINO.

[DemLikr]

64. Walt, how dare you state the apparent!! Shut up! Be silent! Smile! n/t

[Walt Starr]

69. Thank you, I've been taking a beating

But all the ad hominems and strawmen presented against my argument won't change the fact that Kerry has allowed Rove to define him as a lying waffler and made this a "lesser of two evils race". Incumbents love those races because the devil you know is safer than the devil you don't know with fence sitters at the end of the day.

[Tellurian]

73. Rove is a has been, one trick pony..

He is a genius at work when he is under cover and nobodys looking. A master of entrapment. Of course having all the resources in the world in his quiver doesn't hurt either.

What hurts them the most is the expose factor...

The Truth is a bullseye every time.

There is enough Truth out there to do serious damage without breaking a sweat or getting your hands dirty.

Release the hounds!

[Walt Starr]

76. The Truth doesn't mean shit

if it never sees the light of day.

Kerry is a lying waffler. You know that's bullshit. I know that's bullshit. Joe Sixpack thinks it's gospel truth.

Think about it.

[Tellurian]

100. Read here Wally- I'm way ahead of you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1486785&mesg_id=1488312&page=


you're really slipping!


tsk, tsk!

[Killarney]

9. Great post!

[sandnsea]

12. Woot! Woot! Woot!

Whistles. Cheers.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:toast:

Excellent post! Thank you!

[BabsSong]

14. Ive been using that site and encourage others. I have absolutely

no problem with any of Kerry's positions, message, etc. because he's overall on exactly the right side of things. My concern - and understand it's being attended to - was that he had to get these things out in GOOD (emphasis here is 'good') ads because it is the only way his message is heard by the masses. (A few pit stops here and there with no media coverage doesn't go far). Ads are the name of the game (if they weren't you wouldn't be eating that burger and fries!!). Thus, I want not only the passion like on Hardball in those ads I want the ads to be compare and contrast (they have to be or it goes right over the people's heads). He has to say: this is how George screwed you and will continue to screw you and here is what I want to do to protect YOU. And, I'll keep dropping those suggestions to the Kerry camp until my fingers fall off.

[Dookus]

16. It's April

there is a lot of time before the election. He does NOT need to lead in today's polls - he needs to lead in November.

[JI7]

17. he will, but with limited funds he has to plan carefully

he doesn't want to use up all the money now on ads and not have much left over when we get closer to elections and when more people actually start paying attention. this was the case in the primary, he spend less than dean on ads. he fewer and shorter ads than others yet he still came out on top.

and he is running a few ads in a few places (some swing states) right now so most people wont see his ads. i livein california and i only see bush ads. but that's ok because i want him to spend his money where he needs to. if he had the amount of money bush did then he could easily air those ads. but kerry has less than half the money bush has.

[BabsSong]

24. JI7--it's the judicial use of the ads he is running right now that I'm

talking about. My state is getting both their ads. Kerry's aren't good--they just aren't. It takes the same amount of money to put a little piss and vinegar into the same time slot. I understand they just canned their ad writing staff. Obviously, they are getting the feedback that the ads are ineffective. Hopefully, there will be new ones that compare and contrast: Bush has done THIS and I intened to do THAT. He desperately needs those type of ads and a few Bush attack ads thrown in. Spend the money wisely.

[Dookus]

30. he doesn't NEED to lead now...

he needs to lead in November.

Bush blew 70 million dollars on ads against Kerry and it didn't do a damned thing. An incumbent president during wartime is tied with the challenger - that's practically unheard-of. Kerry is NOT in ANY way doing poorly.

[Walt Starr]

62. But he DOES NEED to be the one defining himself

Unfortunately, the definition has been made by Rove.

John forbes Kerry - (n) 1. Politician who is a lying waffler. 2. Rich arrogant politician who never takes a stance until he consults the polls. 3. Cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the medals he "won" in Vietnam.

That's what the fence sitters see.

[Comadreja]

41. Your comments on this exchange, please

I apologize for my attack on Kerry's Sharon stand, brought on by an Amy Goodman interview with Howard Dean. I've been around here long enough for those who have read my chatter to know I am no mole, but a solid progressive Dem. Following is an exchange between another local Dean delegate and myself after I expressed similar feelings on our forum:

Dear (Axel),
You express disappointment in Howard Dean for not taking a forthright stand against Sharon. No politician is going to talk truthfully about Sharon's atrocities this year. It's just a mournful fact of life in this country. Until thoughtful, conscientious American Jews take a principalled stand against Likud and do so loudly enough to get the attention of the media, no politician is going to revoke the blank check that's been written to Sharon. And apparently most Jewish activists are afraid to break ranks on the Israeli question and criticize Sharon openly. So the sort of vibrant debate that routinely takes place in the Israeli press never happens here. And so our politicians remain silent. You can just imagine what the Republican attack machine would do with even the tiniest quaver in support for Sharon from the Democrats. You've seen those meretricious ads attacking Kerry for his defense record, right?
I'm sure you know all this, but your mournful letter prompted me to reply.
Good letter to the paper yesterday! A voice for sanity.
B....(I'm the Dean delegate who was editing the changes in the platform at the convention the other day.)

B.....,
Thanks for taking the time to write. I thought I knew the realities of US toadying to Sharon, but thought that at the least Dean should reject extrajudicial killings. The rot is deeper than I thought, I guess. Well, it seems we need to use our influence not only to get a message to the DNC, but also to Howard. It is good to know that most Dean folk in the local area are offended by Sharon...could be that most of Kerry's supporters are too. I hope so, since at some stage we'll be voting for him.
Thanks Again,
(Axel)

[Failure]

48. just curious, but shouldn't *'s approval ratings be in the shitter?

[Walt Starr]

50. Still above 50% approval in many polls

We're so fucked.

[Dookus]

60. I've seen no recent polls

that put Bush's approval over 50%.

You're blinded by your hatred for Kerry. Get over it, get prozac, shock therapy, whatever it takes - but he's the nominee, he's doing well and he's going to win. Find a Dean 12-step group or something, but screaming "WE'RE DOOOOOOMED!" here day after day is just tiresome. Oh wait... there *IS* a Dean 12-step group... but I can't post the URL.

[Walt Starr]

81. See post 80

I rest my case.

[sangh0]

70. Another Walt mistake

Bush*'s numbers are below 50%.

There's only one person in this thread who is "so fucked".

[Walt Starr]

80. Read them and weep:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey

4/21-25/04 48% approval

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll

4/21-22/04 50% approval

Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

4/16-18/04 52% approval

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

4/15-18/04 51% approval

Zogby International Poll

4/15-17/04 47% approval

<snip>

That should be enough. I said some polls have him at over 50% approval and have proven my statement to be 100% valid.

[sangh0]

108. "Still above 50% approval in many polls" is what you said

You show TWO polls, not "many polls", and one of them is a FOX News poll.

[Walt Starr]

120. "Bush's numbers are below 50%"

is a false statment when two polls show him above 50%.

[sangh0]

129. Avoiding the issue again

You said "many polls" had Bush* above 50%. There are only two

Instead of defending yourself, you attack me. I can't say that I blame you

[Walt Starr]

132. Nope, just threw it back atcha

You claimed no polls were above 50%. I showed two.

since you've pushed the issue, it's obvious you never followed my link. Here's a third:

University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. April 1-14, 2004

53% approval.

Three constitutes "many".

[sangh0]

162. You just made that up

You claimed no polls were above 50%.

I never said that

I showed two.

But you said "many". Many is not "two"

[dsc]

121. the fox news poll is at 50%

so it isn't one of the ones above 50%. The fact is he is right, Bush's approval is above 50% in many polls. Not much above 50% but it is above. BTW, this actually hurts your case. It is far better for Kerry to be having the problems he is having if Bush is above 50, than it is for him to have these problems with Bush below 50%. If Bush really is significantly below 50% and Kerry still can't close the deal, then we really are in trouble. That would mean that most voters don't like either candidate.

[sangh0]

130. dsc, there's only two polls with Bush* above 50%

Two is NOT "many"

If Bush really is significantly below 50% and Kerry still can't close the deal, then we really are in trouble.

That really makes no sense at all, but I'm not interested in explaining it to someone who thinks "many" means "two"

[dsc]

131. Do you honestly think there are only 5 polls?

that is all he quoted. 40% of the polls he quoted had the man above 50%. Clearly he didn't cherry pick them. To me 40% of something there are many of is many.

As to your other point. Bush has a floor of around 43%. Thus the closer Bush gets to that floor in apporoval the higher Kerry should be (since he is the alternative). If Bush is already there, and Kerry is still behind then we are pretty much doomed. If, on the other hand, Bush is still around 50% and Kerry is behind we still have room to manuver. The more room we have, the better off we are, given that Kerry is behind.

On edit I actually went back and checked his link. There are a total of 7 polls, in which 3 have him above 50, 1 has him at 50, and 3 have him below 50. Whether by accident or not, Walt left off the lowest and the highest poll (they also happened to be the last 2). By any reasonable standard, that shows a man whose approval is around 50%. Which makes Walt's statment vastly more truthful than yours.

[sangh0]

148. That's all I saw

and so far all I've seen is two polls. "Two" is not "many"

There are a total of 7 polls, in which 3 have him above 50, 1 has him at 50, and 3 have him below 50. Whether by accident or not, Walt left off the lowest and the highest poll (they also happened to be the last 2). By any reasonable standard, that shows a man whose approval is around 50%. Which makes Walt's statment vastly more truthful than yours.

"Many" does NOT mean "a high percentage". 100% of 1 is 1, but 1 is never "many".

As you pointed out, THREE polls have Bush* above 50%. Do you really think "three" = "many"?

[dsc]

174. When the universe is 7, yes

and certainly in this instance since the point is that his number is as likely to be above 50 as it is to be below 50 which is the whole point of the discussion.

[sangh0]

175. Even "seven" is NOT "many"

so half of that is not "many"

[dsc]

177. It is in this context

Clearly the question that is being addressed here is what is Bush's approval rating? If half the polls have him at or above 50 while half have him at 50 or below that is pretty strong evidence that Walt is closer to correct in saying Bush is at 50 or above than you are for saying Bush isn't. And that is the real point. But if you really wish to dismiss the broader point, which actually helps your case, then fine do so. Again, if Bush really is substantially under 50%, and Kerry is where he is polling now, then we are in more trouble than we think.

[sangh0]

187. Wrong

The question isn't "What is Bush*'s approval rating?"

Walt said that there are "MANY" polls where Bush* has an approval rating higher than 50%. It turns out that by "many", Walt meant "three"

Three is not many, no matter what the context.

that is pretty strong evidence that Walt is closer to correct in saying Bush is at 50 or above than you are for saying Bush isn't. And that is the real point.

No, see above for what the "real" point is.

Again, if Bush really is substantially under 50%, and Kerry is where he is polling now, then we are in more trouble than we think.

That's just as silly as your other argument, above. Most people don't know anything about Kerry yet, so it's understandable why he doesnt get a higher approval rating yet. His #'s can go higher (or lower) as people learn more about him. Bush* on the other hand, is NOT unknown. Everyone knows who he is and has a n opinion on how well he is doing. His numbers aren't going to go that much higher unless some huge event occurs.

Kerry's #'s are much better than Clinton's were at the same point in the 1992 campaign.

[Walt Starr]

136. You didn;'t follow the link

There was a third poll with Bush approval at 53%.

Pollingreport.com is not the end all be all of all polls, either.

[sangh0]

149. No, YOU didn't follow the link

You made the claim, so it's YOUR burden to supply the evidence.

And "three" is not "many"

[Walt Starr]

153. I supplied the evidence

I produced the results of many polls showing Bush with greater than a 50% approval rating.

[sangh0]

164. "two" is not "many"

neither is "three"

[Failure]

75. sorry I asked...it's just that with all the chaos * has caused with his

foreign policy, and how he's fucked up everything else he's put his hands on...why don't we have this sewn up? Why doesn't shrub have an approval rating about 20%?????????????????

edit...killed my typist

[DemLikr]

78. Hello!? DU is hardly a PUBLIC forum, in any real sense...

There are so many things wrong with your post, but let me just list a few:

Let's see, there are about 43,000 of us here at DU, which is .000172 per cent of the U.S. population. If your candidate can't hold up to criticism here in this tiny forum, you really are fucked.

DU is the ONLY forum of any kind in which I have stated my misgivings about Kerry as the Dem candidate. In all other, more visible areas of my life I support his candidacy and promote the retirement of GWB. If we can't exchange gripes and bitch and moan among ourselves, here on this board, then the Dem party really is fucked.

Finally, it is my job to make a living, support my children, and further my career. It is JOHN KERRY'S job, and the job of those with whom he surrounds himself, to get himself elected, AND to convince people like me to really WORK for his candidacy, if that's what he wants.

Don't tell me to do his job until he comes to my home office and takes over mine!

If you want ME to run JK's campaign, then we really are fucked.

The snooty, sniffling attitude taken by JK supporters, as did you in this post, that I am somehow OBLIGATED to go out of my way for this man, or at the very least to FUCKING SHUT UP is complete and utter crap.

You want JK in the white house? Sorry; you gotta EARN it.

[bigtree]

141. If you don't think you have a responsibility and can make a difference

in this campaign then I would submit that you are completely wrong. As stated over and over, this board is gaining in readership, I believe at a greater rate than the increase in membership. Also I believe that the caliber of readership has increased also, as recently stated by our own Babs. I can't get out of bed without affirming to myself that I can make a difference in this campaign and for our country. I don't think that is as much delusion as it is dogged optimism. So I try harder each day, confident that one person may be inspired, that one person may be encouraged and energized.

Snooty? Sorry I came across as snooty. But I would point out the strident critisisms that emerge in those 'buck up Kerry' posts border on pure insults to outright opposition. Opposition is what I expect from the other side. Insults are what I fight daily from the other side. That's not an accusation that to insult or oppose Kerry makes anyone less loyal to the party or makes them republicans or anything like that. What I am asserting is that these unvarnished, insulting slaps at Kerry are mostly uninformed, and imo, only serve to give aid and comfort to the other side.

Time is short, and so are resources. To spend any time on what may be the most visible forum for most posters, seems to me a destructive waste of space and time. Who are these folks trying to influence? What reaction are these public detractors trying to elicit from those here? Apathy? Discouragement a la W.Starr?

Venting is fine, but how about some respect for our candidate as we criticize? John Kerry has had republican opposition since the Nixon era, 30 some years of it. His enemy, presumably, is our enemy. I am suggesting saving our public fire for Bush and his gang and using our most respectful instincts and actions when it comes to this fine man.

We have a chance to set things right where so much has ben hijacked and set wrong by this Bush cabal. Some facts and motivation:

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, at the president's direction, presented a plan; The Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, to monitor the activities of ordinary Americans, which would rival the Reichstag Fire Decree. (Allowed the Nazi government to take any "appropriate" measure to remedy dangers to public safety, and represented one of the major steps in which the Nazi government established its rule.)

The manner in which the Supreme Court intervened to halt the recount of the Florida election ballot, and effectively assured the ascendence of President Bush to the presidency, must be factored into any expectation of impartiality in higher court decisions involving prosecutions for dissent whose appellants challenge the motives and the prerogatives of the executive, especially in times of war.

These constitutional protections serve to restrain our government and its elected representatives as they perform their duties, to act in a manner which preserves the promises of democracy and provides for free expression, debate, and advocacy, and representation in our political and legal system.

Without these constitutional protections, it is impossible for the government to act decisively on the assumption it has the full weight of the American people behind any decision it might make.
_____________________________________________________

The present war with Iraq is the ambition of the corporate wing of the conservative establishment who views Iraq as a potential wedge against the domination of Mideast oil-producing nations which, in many respects, are openly hostile to American economic interests in the region. Having failed to turn the first war to their corporate advantage, the exiled power brokers brooded and plotted to revive a public campaign against Saddam Hussein which would unseat the dictator and allow the U.S. to install an authority there compliant to American business concerns.
________________________________________________________

The election of George Bush and Dick Cheney was a watershed for the military corporations. Both had been stalwart supporters of the multibillion dollar military industry; Bush in his home state and Cheney, wherever he could exploit his tenure as defense secretary during the first Iraq war, and build on his past deal-making with the coalition members.
_____________________________________________________

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.
_____________________________________________________

One would expect that President Bush would be humbled by his lack of experience in the military and that his same shallow depth of involvement in foreign affairs would cause him to wield our armed forces with caution and restraint.

Yet, upon assuming the moniker of the commander-in-chief he reflexively aligned himself with the armed forces' bureaucracy which has, in the last decade, involved itself more with the projection and preservation of U.S. monied interests around the globe, than with the actual defense of democratic ideals of economic and social justice.

It was that alignment which fostered the unprecedented appointments of hundreds of the who's-who in the military industrial world to the most sensitive positions in our government offices.

The biggest threat to the World community is the proliferation of WMDs here in the U.S., facilitated by a nest of former military-industrial executives (military-industrial warriors) and shareholders in the Defense department and throughout the Bush administration.
___________________________________________

A World Policy Institute review found that 32 major policy makers in the current administration have significant ties to the arms industry now, and prior to joining the administration
______________________________________________

Bush talked up the renewal of the Star Wars program during the campaign, money was put into research, and the program is waiting for the war to die down so they can pump more money in.

In the 2004 defense budget, Congress appropriated $100 million to reinstate one of the canceled missile defense tests. The total amount the administration requested for Ballistic Missile Defense: $9.1 billion; Senate's bill: $9.1 billion.
_________________________________________________

Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion worth of weaponry around the world. North America accounts for more than 65% of the world's arms exports. Of the 43 countries with over $500 million in arms imports, 23 obtained 2/3 or more from the U.S.

With the new money appropriated for homeland defense ($38 billion for FY 2003), virtually all of the big defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon have started hawking their products for use in domestic security.

In order to replace weapons used in Afghanistan, and in concert with the military conflict in Iraq, most U.S. weapons makers have increased production. Bombs are big business again and the Bush administration has opened the candy store, exporting death, conquest, and perpetual war.
______________________________________________

According to the study by United for a Fair Economy, More Bucks for the Bang: ", the median CEO salary at the 37 largest publicly traded defense contractors rose 79% between 2001 and 2002 whereas overall CEO salary increased only 6%. In 2002, defense industry CEOs earned an average of $5.4 million - or 577 times as much as a private in Iraq - while other U.S. CEOs, on average, earned "only" $3.7 million."
_____________________________________________________

There seems to be no limit to aerospace ambitions. The administration is pushing ahead with the expansion of the military space program, despite the limitations of the nation's weak economy and the adoption of many other costly ‘priorities' for the armed forces.
_____________________________________________________

Most Americans would be surprised to know that the nuclear arms race has been restarted by the Bush administration, for the first time since the U.S. banned the production of such weapons in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed by the U.S. and Russia in 1968, entered into force in 1970; and since the moratorium on nuclear testing, which has been in place since 1992.

Three nuclear utilities have already applied for site permits this year, and more are expected to follow in the wake of a revival of the rhetoric of advocacy for a broad range of pet projects from the nuclear industry and administration supporters.
__________________________________________________

The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research. Their proposals originated in a position paper which is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010".

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program."

This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game.
__________________________________________________

During Senate testimony in July, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that there are "something in the neighborhood of 300,000 men and women in uniform doing jobs that aren't for men and women in uniform."

The Pentagon asserts that the increase in the private forces represents a "move toward a smaller, more nimble force than the huge multinational coalition that was assembled to push Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990." They also point out that many of the new, hi-tech weapon systems require continuous maintenance and come with their own private support army.

However, the growth of the private military forces has to be attributed to more than Pentagon micro-management. Most of the work that is being done by these private soldiers has, in the past, been performed by the regular military.
___________________________________________________

The U.S. doesn't intend to leave the Iraqi army to its own devices anytime soon, however. They plan to establish U.S. supported military and national security institutions which they describe a necessary for "civilian control and oversight."

It appears that the U.S. military is going to create the same type of junta that they deposed.
__________________________________________________

In September it was reported that yet another group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President George Bush, his family, and his administration had set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq. There hasn't been one complaint about profiteering from the White House.

But why should we expect one, though? "You're either with them or against them."

I suggest we put misguided acrimony aside and focus our fire on the real obstacle to peace and the well-being of Americans: G.W.Bush

[tom_paine]

79. kick for the TRUTH

I've already joined before you posted this, but what a great post it was!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:toast:

[opihimoimoi]

126. Kick for the Pueo....the OWL

:kick:

[calimary]

122. This thread certainly has the most interesting SHAPE of any I've seen.

Lots of long diagonals. Even a champagne-glass shape in there. MOST creative. I just wish they'd send me the Kerry bumper sticker I requested. It's been weeks now.

[bigtree]

135. I just got back home- Ask me anything

I wasn't trying to duck the thread, it's just that I'm so used to kicking my own post after the one or two responses I usually get that I posted and ran off. Looks like the Walt Starr show IMO.

[sangh0]

150. For a poster who has givenup on the Presidential election

he is quite compulsive about discussing it.

[bigtree]

154. Didn't he tell you?

He supports Kerry. I like to see some of that support from Walt. None forthcoming so far, save his declared intention to vote for him. Reminds me of those republicans who claimed over and over that they were pro-choice but voted against every pro-choice bill that came down the pike. Well, I'll be happy to get Walt's vote. I just wish he would try to persuade a few others to do likewise.

[Walt Starr]

157. I've tried to sway multiple fence sitters

All I get from them is, "Kerry is a lying waffler, so I can't vote for Kerry."

[bigtree]

158. Well, I'd encourage you to keep trying.

You have my support in that. Thank you in advance for your tenaciousness in defense of our candidate.

[Walt Starr]

163. It would help if Kerry got out in front of this

Basically I hit a brick wall when trying to convince these people. If Kerry could get this crap out of the mainstream, mybe they'd listen to me about the evils of Bush.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

166. I wonder at the folks who assert that Bush is better

I wonder at the folks who don't see the lies, distortions, and obfuscations of Bush. I wonder at the folks who would assert that Bush has been straight with them. I mean, ribbons? C'mon! Bush broke America. That would be my argument. Time to put the adults back in charge.

[Walt Starr]

167. They all have said, "Bush is bad"

But the argument is "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".

Rove has made this race yet another "choice between two evils".

Races defined that way always favor the incumbent.

[bigtree]

168. Poor Walt

So misunderstood, and so hard to understand. Hang in there. Hope we disappoint 'them'.

[Walt Starr]

169. Only because I'm unafraid

of running over sacred cows by speaking the truth.

[bigtree]

170. Truth

Truth is one, but error proliferates. Man tracks it down and cuts it up into little pieces hoping to turn it into grains of truth. But the ultimate atom will always essentially be an error, a miscalculation.

René Daumal (1908–1944), French poet, critic


Essential truth, the truth of the intellectualists, the truth with no one thinking it, is like the coat that fits tho no one has ever tried it on, like the music that no ear has listened to. It is less real, not more real, than the verified article; and to attribute a superior degree of glory to it seems little more than a piece of perverse abstraction-worship.

William James (1842–1910), U.S. philosopher, psychologist

[sangh0]

172. Now the issue is "sacred cows"

Walt, are you sure you're in the right country?

[Classical_Liberal]

171. [e-mail] is nothin of the sort

Nobody responds to questions you just get spammed.

[bigtree]

173. Try a call to one of the headquarters

John Kerry for President, Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
202-712-3000
202-712-3001 (fax)



Contact Your Local Office

California Office
10350 Santa Monica Blvd
Suite 330
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310-556-9172
323-556-9183 (fax)

Florida Office
201 S. Biscayne Blvd
Suite 2700, Miami Center
Miami, FL 33131
305-372-9945
305-371-5732 (fax)

Illinois Office
432 N Clark St
Suite 203
Chicago, IL 60610
312-832-0220
312-832-0744 (fax)

Massachusetts Office
60 Canal Street
Boston, MA 02114
617-367-1551
617-523-2033 (fax)
New Jersey Office
50 Northfield Ave.
West Orange, NJ 07052
973-325-0936
973-731-9695 (fax)

New York Office
373 Park Avenue South
9th floor
New York, NY 10016-8805
212-213-0220
212-213-9230 (fax)

Texas Office
3200 Travis St.
3rd Floor
Houston, TX 77006
713-526-2004
713-526-2003 (fax)

[Iceburg]

178. Kick for the night shift

[zeemike]

181. The site does not seem friendly to ideas.

But if it were I would say that I want Kerry to give specific programs, like;

"I want to create a program to change this country from a carbon based energy system to one of hydrogen in the next decade and end our dependence on fossil fuels."

[bigtree]

184. Back at cha

Kerry: 80% RENEWABLES; 10% FOSSIL FUELS; 10% NUCLEAR POWER

- My energy plan calls
for the establishment of a Hydrogen Institute that will bring together the leading scientists and policy advisors in the nation to make sure that we do what is necessary to fully exploit the potential of hydrogen. I will rely on these experts in designing a real hydrogen program that will deliver a cleaner
and brighter energy future.

http://www.ases.org/election2004/sec_pres_candidates2004.pdf


Kerry called for a comprehensive effort to expand the supply of natural gas and for a hydrogen-based economy by 2020. He would create a new institute to fund research, setting a goal of 2.5 million hydrogen-powered cars on the road by 2020.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21182/newsDate/16-Jun-2003/story.htm


Kerry wants to make us energy independent. The early stages of his plan call for the active development of renewable energy, ethanol, bio-fuels and the building of a hydrogen infrastructure. Ultimately, he would see us move from an oil-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. New technology always creates jobs. The hydrogen economy will create jobs. If you want to keep auto manufacturing in the U.S., we need to be in the business of hydrogen cars.

http://www.constellationdesign.net/S4K/KitsapSpeech.php


Kerry also favors hydrogen research, but in the meantime he wants to require more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars in the next decade. And although he's for more use of natural gas because it's the cleanest fossil fuel, he's against drilling in the Arctic refuge.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/special_packages/election2004/8486550.htm


The senator also favors tax incentives to speed production of hybrid-fuel engines and to develop hydrogen fuel cells. Kerry will call for "reinvesting" in public transit and rail and promoting biofuels and ethanol as oil alternatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15666-2002Jan21?language=printer


In addition our nation should make a large-scale commitment to research and development of hydrogen fuel cells, which offer the greatest promise to revolutionize our energy system. The potential is so great and so transforming that all the major energy and auto companies are racing to develop this technology. Fuel cells can power cars, trucks, buses, trains and ships -- and free standing fuel cells can power homes. The challenge is to make fuel cells the most cost effective choice.

It is no surprise that Energy Secretary Abraham announced his support last week for a federal program to assist our automobile industry in researching fuels cells. I applaud the idea of this initiative but offer words of caution. First, no one knows what their commitment will be. And second, the Administration's initiative is no substitute, whatsoever, for modernizing our CAFÉ standards. The "Freedom Car" program, as it is called, cannot become the reason for inaction on CAFÉ. There is no inconsistency between more efficient vehicles and an aggressive public-private partnership to develop fuel cells. We need and should have both.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_0122.html

[zeemike]

185. That is all great

But to me I can still see some slip room in every statement.
For instance in the first one the key words that bother me are;
leading scientists and policy advisors…I will rely on these experts
My question would be who is the policy advisor? Halliburton, Exxon Shell oil?
And in the last one;
In addition our nation should make a large-scale commitment to research and development of hydrogen fuel cells,
Is Kerry aware that the hydrogen fuel cell was developed in the sixties and was the power source for the Apollo program that took us to the moon?
And it has languished for 35 years with no one making use of a wonderful invention of the space program?

I guess what I want is strait talk that says we will do this, not we will study it and maybe try. And I want him to make it part of his stump speech and talk about it every chance he gets.
He should do it if he has the real passion for making things better, but I suppose it would limit the campaign contraptions of people that have energy stocks in there portfolio.

[bigtree]

186. Dude he has spoken and acted on this for years. He has committed

himself to this effort. But go ahead and push, just try to understand that there are only two major figures in this race and Bush is completely ignorant of your concerns. John on the other hand is totally committed to a hydrogen based energy policy and has put himself on record time and time again for years. He can't do anything alone and I for one appreciate that he is not going to dictate how we get there rather he wants those with the most Knowlege to take the lead while he and our government provides support, congressionally and otherwise. The point of my post was to underscore the length and breadth of his committment.

What didn't you understand? He IS making this an integral part of his stump speeches. Have you ever bothered to read any? They are as available to you as they are to me. I bothered to go and find numerous examples but you blow them off just to criticize again.

Have you heard of the Apollo inituitive?

The Apollo Alliance is the new labor-environmental coalition that is promoting the project. The Alliance consists of 12 of the country's biggest unions -- including the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- and has received ringing endorsements from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

Together, they have called upon all Democratic presidential candidates to back a new Apollo Project. So far, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., have embraced the goals of the new Apollo Project with the greatest enthusiasm. In June, Kerry called for a $1 billion annual investment in cleaner cars and trucks to achieve a hydrogen-based economy by 2020. Gephardt has even predicted that "alternative energy has the potential to be American's largest growth market and job producer in the next 10 years."

We must end our addiction to oil, argues the Apollo Alliance. Ultimately, reserves will dwindle and the world will need new sources of power. Meanwhile, the effort to control access to oil drives our foreign policy and keeps us chained to guarding pipelines, from Iraq to Colombia.

The new Apollo Project calls for considerable public investment in energy-efficient research and manufacturing. The goal, according to the Alliance, is to "turn the Rust Belt into the Hydrogen & Hybrid Hub, put mass transit on the fast track, capture the markets of the future for U.S. products and create a million good new jobs."

http://www.apolloalliance.org/apollo_in_the_news/aimingformoon.cfm


Research before you level these criticisms. That is the gist of this post. Do the homework!

[zeemike]

188. Fair enough

But I think I express the frustration that many of us feel when we know that things like this are not new but have just been ignored for year, even though they are the solution.
What I am saying is that I want more than just a promise to study the matter, but a commitment like Kennedy made to go to the moon.
And in fairness to me, I should not be responsible for digging into this to figure out what Kerry wants to do. That is the responsibility of his campaign to make it known to the public. And if there are no positive affirmations that make it to the TV then his campaign is not going anywhere.
As for me, I do feel better seeing all of this. And He will probably get my vote in any case, because it is ABB for me. But my concerns I think are valid, and he should be more positive and present clear plans in where we go in the future.

[Walt Starr]

182. Okay, so I'm feeling better about this today

Kerry has friends. Stern and Imus are defining him pretty well and are defining Chimpy McCokespoon* as a war criminal.

This is critical because the audience Imus and Stern play to are the same sort of fence sitters I've been having problems getting through to.

Things could be much worse, and are likely going to get much better in the coming weeks.

Please disregard my negativity of yesterday. I had a hard time with many fence sitters over the past couple of weeks.

[bigtree]

183. Posts headed by Walt Starr will definitely get my attention from now on!

:kick: