Kerry bashing has been alive and well of late

[politicasista]

First of all, on the gay marriage thingy. I am for gay rights. I don't agree with Kerry's stance on Iraq, nor the concession, but I still can appreciate him being out there working for us everyday. Are you supposed to agree with everything the Dems do? NO.

I am just curious, cause Kerry's been doing some good things, yet, we are unhappy with him over this one issue, but let other dems that have the same sentiment off the hook.

Like it or not, the gay marriage issue is a wedge, Rovian repuke trap and we, yes WE are falling right into it. I do think that we are going to have to work around this issue, but bashing or singling out Kerry on this issue is not healthy for us Dems or Indies period.

I think we should stop putting our own 2008 agenda/candidates ahead of things we need to deal with right now. What about fighting corrupt, criminal-in-chief? What about hungry children without health insurance? What about jobless parents? What about saving SS and taking care of seniors? What about election reform? What about 2006?

As I have said earlier, those who are complaining by saying that Kerry won't get my vote cause of ________ need to remember, whoever runs and wins the nomination (and hopefully the presidency) in 2008 is going to have a huge, massive mess to clean up.

Get over the primaries and get behind those who are fighting for us.

Think about it.

[Vincardog]

1. First win the Congress in 06 then Impeach and jail the criminals

we don't know who will be running in 08. We do the fix will be in unless we get Es&S and Diebold out of our elections.

[dkofos]

29. Indeed

[NMDemDist2]

2. thank you very much for your thoughtful post. We are not required to

agree with every stance of every Democrat. I fear we lose sight of the forest of progressive issues by flaming a tree of dissension.

There is a clear line between holding our leaders accountable and nitpicking their every word. The leaders who have taken the abuse here this week (Kerry, Kucinich and Dean) all are working every day for the progressive issues we all hold dear.

Let's try and focus on what we can do to win in Congress in '06 and how to stop letting Rove et al. frame our issues in the national debate.

If we put half the effort into that action that we have spent this week bashing solid progressives, we would be unstoppable!

As politicasista says "Think about it"

[Dr Ron]

3. Agreed--Look at The Differences, Not the Traps

Rove is a master of using wedge issues and giving opponents choices where there is no win.

It is more important to look at the result would be of a Kerry Presidency rather than whether you like a particular statement or the technicalities of a vote.

Forget what is said over a plank in a state party platform, or whether someone calls what they want marriage or civil unions. The important thing is that Kerry is pushing for gays to have all the legal rights currently provided to married people. It is Kerry who refused to listen to Clinton's advice to support anti-gay marriage ammendments in states where they were on the ballot, and Kerry who opposed Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, defending the rights of gay soldiers.

Forget about the IWR vote, which was a choice of voting yes (which could be misinterpreted as support for a war which Kerry strongly opposed) or of voting no, which would suggest an unwillingness to defend America even if found to be threatened by a madman with nuclear weapons. The important thing is that under Kerry we would not have gone to war except as a last resort if we were really found to be threatened. Under Kerry we would not have gone virtually unilaterally with opposition from much of the world (unless this was absolutely necessary to defend America, which would be an unlikely situation).

Forget about the vote for the Patriot Act, which virtually every Democrat voted for in order to get a compromise to provide the sunset provisions. Under Kerry, we would have the provisions necessary to modernize law enforcement to truely go after terrorism, while removing the provisions which unnecessarily infringe upon civil liberties.

Forget about the vote for No Child Left Behind--which was Ted Kennedy's project in the Senate. Under Kerry there would be adequate funding for education, and NCLB would be used as intended to improve schools, not to create new unfunded mandates and then penalize schools as Bush enforced the law.

[politicasista]

6. Thanks for clearing that up Doc.

I never understood what the IWR was.

[Dr Ron]

11. It was a trap

That's the important way to look at it. It's main purpose was to make it easy to run against the Democrats.

We saw what they would do with someone who voted yes. They would claim he supported the war, and then could define any criticism of the war as a flip flop.

At the time of the vote Bush was saying that a yes vote did not mean war was inevitable, only that America stood together.

Kerry had a hard time over this. He tried to out smart them with a floor statement which had a clear explanation of the circumstances in which military action was accpetable and those in which it was not acceptable. He went on to make many fine statements opposing Bush's policy, leading up to a call for regime change in Washington at the onset of the war.

If people had listened to Kerry, he would have outsmarted them. Unfortuantely, the right wing noise machine won out, considerably assisted by similar attacks on Kerry by Democrats who didn't bother to take a look at his actual position.

[saltpoint]

4. Hi, politicasista. Your defense of John Kerry here is even --

-- more resonant with me after hearing still more clips of Dubya blathering away about Social Security cuts and "freedom on the march" BS.

Listening to that man speak -- or TRY to speak -- makes my skin crawl.

It is hurtful to the United States when other nations' citizens regard us as brainless and aggressive, as bullies, as ego-centric oil-sucking jerks.

Too many U.S. votesr supported Bush-Cheney and with their heartless, careless vote, passed up an opportunity we all could have had to have a Kerry-Edwards administration, which would not have elicited the hostility and distrust and scorn we're getting from other nations right now.

Bush cheated to win -- twice.

I would be MUCH happier in a Kerry-Edwards America.

[politicasista]

41. Hi Old Crusoe

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Everybody bashing has been alive and well here lately.

Kerry has been attacked, Dean has been attacked, Kucinich has been attacked. The Clark attacks have been down for a couple of days, but they'll be back soon enough.

I wish that all reasonable people on this board would stop participating, stop fanning the flames, and would strongly discourage that kind of behavior wherever it occurs and whoever is the target.

Sometimes I think this place does the GOP's work far better than the GOP ever could.

[politicasista]

8. I know it's been everybody, but it hasn't been extreme as Kerry's has

[Crunchy Frog]

16. It always seems most extreme when it's your guy being bashed.

It gets flung at everybody on here. Not that I want to get into a pissing match over who has it worst. That would just invite more pointless flaming.

[Dr Fate]

7. YES- Kerry has been very strong on the "Safe" issues.

But when it comes to the most important issues, like individual freedom/equality, or talking about the UK Iraq memo, he seems to care more about what the swing-voters may or may not think than what the base thinks.

The base that gave him tons of $$$ & volunteer time, BTW.

Kerry has done a good job of fighting for "safe" issues and mainting the status quo- but tends to go along with Bush/meida defintions when it comes to the issues that are certainly the most important to me, and arguably THE most important issues, period.

Having said that, I have supported his petitions and have even given more money when he asks.

I'll likely be supporting Clark or a strong anti-war candidate in 2008- whoever that may be.

[politicasista]

12. Who else is Anti-war?

From what I read Clark and Dean all had the same position as Kerry did. Just be thankful that he is doing something reasonable and not living up to personal agendas.

[Dr Fate]

17. I know- none of the high-profile DEMS are speaking up about the memo.

And I said- "whoever"- possibly Clark though. Possibly Kerry- I LIKE the guy and passionatly campaigned for him.

I'd love to know what Clark sez- but how aout the top-DEMS who actaully hold an office or position-

When is Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Reid, etc going to speak up about the bombshell memo?- I have yet to hear a peep.

I'm beginning to think they already decided to give Bush another free pass on this most important issue.

There I go, "bashing" again. :eyes:

[Dr Ron]

20. Memo is not really new

The memo is more evidence of what we already knew, and what has been published in multiple sources.

I agree that they should have taken advantage of this to remind people--I posted it immediately on two blogs I write for. However, as it is not really new I wouldn't get too upset about them not making an issue of this particular memo now. Besides, the evidence is there and can be used at any time. I bet that Kerry isn't referring to it now as he is remaining focused on his current tour regarding health care for children.

[Dr Fate]

35. yes- kerry fights hard for the safe issues, but not the most important one

The fact we are at war based on lies is THE most important issue. Period. I cant think of anything more outrageous in my entire life.

Kerry's silence means he:

1) See's no problem with lying to start wars
2) thinks he can keep his support by only discussing safe issues
3) thinks "swing voters" will think he is "soft on defense" if he tries to expose the truth
4) Thinks the media will call him a "flip-flopper" again

I'm sure there are other excuses I did not think of too. I'll accept NONE of them, barring evidence that the memo is fake.

If he want me to shake my pom-poms for him, then I want Kerry to speak up- NOW. I dont care how old the memo is.

[Dr Ron]

45. Nonsense

Here we see where the Kerry bashing comes from. We see someone making absurd statements such as Kerry seeing no problem with lying to start wars with absolutley no evidence.

Kerry is out talking about child care this week. The memo is nothing new. He can always use it when he criticizes Bush for lying us into war, as he has done in the past.

Other Democrats are not talking about the memo this week, so this is hardly grounds for specific Kerry bashing. (If you want to talk about the Democrats not doing enough to compete with the Republican noise machine, then you have a valid argument and I'd agree with you).

Kerry has neither avoided criticizing Bush on the war, having been one of the first Democrats to do so, nor avoied the hard issues. This post is a great example of how Kerry bashing is created with pure fabrication.

[Dr Fate]

54. Yes, Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Reid etc have not spoken up about the memo.

And that is nonsense. I hope they do- soon- on TV, where EVERYONE hears it, not just their donor base.

I have fabricated nothing- If Kerry wants to end speculation as to why he is silent about John Conyers NEW inquiry, then all he has to do is speak up.

I dont care if the memo is "old news" as the media would have us believe. Monica's dress was in a freezer for a year- that was "old news" too.

I'm glad kerry is strong on Child healthcare, etc, but I want him front & center, backing Conyer's NEW inquiry. I also want Dean, Clark, Reid, Obama, Hillary, Gore, etc talking about this.

This is not about "Kerry" for me- this about lies that got us into war, and the fact that it's being ignored by many.

Hopefully egg will be on my face and all the DEMSs I've mentioned will be making an issue out of this.

[Dr Ron]

19. True

Clark and Dean did have virtually the same position. The difference is that they didn't have to cast a vote on the IWR.

[Dr Ron]

18. Clark had virtually the same position on the war as Kerry

Clark did not have to vote on the IWR, which was not an act in support of the war as this has been distorted. Clark has been vague, sometimes saying he would have voted yes.

While Clark had trouble answering questions as to how he would have voted, he got the real point down when he said that the IWR vote was a poor litmus test as to support or opposition to the war. (Also see my other posts in this thread on the IWR and other Kerry positions).

[Dr Fate]

22. I explained Kerry's vote to hundreds of folks when I was campaigning.

Trust me, it didn't work then and it wont work now.
If that explaination did not sway "swing voters"- it is certainly not going to sway me. I never bought it- I just said it to people b/c I wanted Kerry to win.

Kerry voted "yes"- he should have voted "no" -just like the majority of us rank & file DEMS wanted him to. It's that simple. Nuff said.

Having said that, I forgive him-I dont care about his past vote- I want to know if he is going to speak up loud & clear about the new UK Iraq Lies Memo. He can plead ignorance on his past vote- but I want to know what he is going to do about these lies NOW that he is aware of them.

Clark is not perfect, check. I dont know who I'm going to support just yet- I like Clark, Kerry, Gore- and I'm sure some others will pop up.

[Dr Ron]

25. If you didn't buy it, you didn't really understand it

Under that situation, it is not surprising that you were also unconvincing to others in explaining Kerry's vote.

[Dr Fate]

30. No, I understand perfectly. He should have voted "no." He voted "yes."

He took a gamble- he decided to go with swing-voters and media perceptions instead of his base.

If he had listened to his BASE instead of his "strategists" he would not have had the whole flip-flopper thing.

Oh-well. We can argue this all day long- but swing-voters dont buy it. Neither do I. He hedged his bets- he was afraid they might actually find WMDs- a legitimate concern, but he, Bush & the media were wrong on that end. The base, the war protesters and the disseting DEMs were right.

I forgive Kerry- he was arguably in a bind- although other DEMs knew to vote "no."

The issue now is "What is Kerry going to do NOW"- he has a chance to expose the lies by talking about this new memo. Do you think he will do it?

I'll forgive Kerry for his vote 100% if he speaks up loud & clear about this memo. Where is he on this?

[KoKo]

40. Yes......"Inquiring Minds Want to know!"

We DO! Where are you John Kerry? Did the "Swift Boat Liars" silence you on any "war issue" forever?

:shrug:

[KoKo]

42. So...Kerry "loses" an election and is lucky enough to go back to Senate...

not everyone is so lucky. But, many of us consider him the LEADER of the PARTY because we worked out butts off for him and it was a "close" election...so he should be out there focusing on Bush and what he's done wrong and LEADING...not just going off on his own issues which fit in with the Senate guidelines of how "not to stand out."

[Dr Fate]

57. That is what frustrates me- I thought WE got to pick the issues.

As it is, THEY get to pick what issues we are supposed to get behind.

I AM behind the issues that Kerry is fighting for, but they are not my TOP issues. My top issue is holding Bush accountable for LYING about the reasons 1000s are dead and billions of $$$ are being wasted.

[MoonRiver]

43. Yep. If Kerry comes out demanding a special prosecutor, even I

will nominate a thread about this for the Greatest Posts page. I'm not too worried I'll have to make good on that promise though.

[Dr Ron]

46. Kerry is speaking out on health care

Considering that other Democrats have not spoken out on the memo this week, it is hard to single out Kerry on this.

The information in the memo is nothing new. Kerry can bring it up any time he wants to criticize Bush for lying about the war, as he has done many times in the past.

[Dr Fate]

56. I've never singled out Kerry. I always mention Dean, Hillary, Reid too...

..."Other" Democrats who know one has ever heard of are speaking out- in a letter. Well, swing-voters in red states dont read letters. They wathc TV and read the papers. If top DEMs would speak up, this would be a big news item.

We need the house-hold name, quoatable, top DEMs ON TV talking about this. Otherwise it will swept under the rug.


Kerry is doing wonderful on Healthcare, etc. I support those efforts.

[CBGLuthier]

9. Sorry, but I will NOT support

John Kerry if he will not support basic human rights.

Period.

Wedge issue my ass. Right is right and Wrong is wrong.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Last Lemming]

58. Hey, you forgot election fraud

just happened to drop in here and noticed your 18 posts and your comment

I am about where you are I think Dems are waking up a little but until Kerry fulfills the most important promise I've had any politician make--that every vote will be counted--I reserve judgement on his ultimate worth. And if it's any indication of respect right now I would finanically support only John Conyers--YESSSSS--and Andy Stevenson. Others may be just as worthy--like Howard Dean--but they are low profile enough that I don't see them in my current space (hey, I live in South Carolina--not much Democratic action here.)

AND Welcome!!!!

[CBGLuthier]

31. ignorant??

First of all, learn how to spell "wasting" please before you call me ignorant.

Second, abortion is the biggest "wedge" issue in this country today. I guess I should support a democrat (not Kerry in this case) who believes that women's bodies and their decisons about such are not their right.

I hate to actualy say this but I would rather live in the hell that is Bush's america than compromise ANY of my beliefs.

[Bluebear]

53. "Waisting space with your ignorant comments"

Who pissed in your corn flakes today?

[Dr Ron]

14. He is supporting basic human rights

Are you refering to his support for civil unions as opposed to gay marriage? While I don't agree, I can understand his separation of marriage as a religious institution and civil unions as containing all the legal benefits of marriage.

Kerry has been very firm in insisting that any restrictions on gay marriage must have guarantees of civil unions, and that the civil unions must have all the legal benefits now given to marriage.

While you can disagree on the fine point of the the word marriage, it is not true that he is showing any lack of support for human rights.

[MoonRiver]

13. What about gay people who want to get married and have the same rights

as the rest of US? Or don't they matter? :shrug:

[Dr Ron]

15. He supports that

Due to his religious background, he calls this civil unions. However he has insisted that civil unions provide for all the rights now provided through marriage.

So you oppose Kerry on this, and wind up with Bush. Smart move.

[MoonRiver]

21. We wind up with bush or bushlike anyway.

Or didn't you noticed that Kerry lost the presidential election last November? I know that the black box probably ate my vote, but he should have been orchestrating lawsuits against these corrupt companies long before the election. Besides if we can't actually "vote" I'd rather pretend vote for a candidate who stands up and speaks truth to power. Kerry does not do that anymore, imho. He can't ride the wave of his anti-VietNam protests forever. I want to see real progressives on the Democratic ticket.

[Dr Ron]

24. Need evidence for lawsuits

You need very firm evidence in order to make charges such as of a stolen election. Kerry sent tons of lawyers looking for such evidence, and we may not have heard the end of this yet.

Kerry played this smart. He followed the advice of those who wanted him to have a low profile in this. If it looked like a question of Kerry vs. Bush, it would be seen as being a poor loser. This would have discredited not only Kerry, but the entire effort for election reform.

[stillcool]

26. I have finally come to a place...

where the bashers no longer push my buttons. I equate them with the media. They generally spout pre-packaged and stale left-overs from some syntax they were once stimulated by. I am also of the opinion that this particular road we are on has its beginnings in our history and before significant change can occurr we need to address 'those' issues thoroughly for until we do the road will continue along with only a minor change in landscape.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. Isn't Kerry the Senator from Massachusetts?

I would think that people of Massachusetts are his primary constituents and NOT the whole of us. He is still assuming a role of a mandate from those who voted for him in the primaries and the election.

Many are sick of him and his calculated responses that seem to change like day and night.

He, as it stands now, ONLY represents the state of Massachusetts and has NO legal bearing to speak for the rest of the nation. Period.

[MoonRiver]

33. Well said. And I totally agree.

It's as if by virtue of running and, incidentally it seems, losing, he assumes he's permanently owed the loyalty of all Democrats who voted for him. Wake up Senator Kerry.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

28. Say it like this: "Marriage equality is not important, cuz I've got mine!"

"Why do we focus on equal rights? What a waste of time and energy? Where are gays going to go? They have no choice - we can sell them out and they'll STILL vote for us."

I'm sorry, but you are as misguided in your thinking as others in DU are.

[CTLawGuy]

32. I think thats a good post

what if LBJ had vetoed the Civil Rights Act to keep the South in our column?

[CBGLuthier]

59. Brilliant and thank you

Why this is so hard for some to understand is a mystery to me.

When those inflammatory (I can't think of a better word ) remarks of kerry's came out my opinion was it is all so stupid this debate.

Human right's and dignity.

Everyone should enjoy the same protections and legal statuses.
Every person should be in charge of the (sometimes tough) decisions about their bodies.

I remember reading a recent editorial in USA Today arguing against gays in the military. My thought was substitute the word "negro" for gay and it is the same lame-ass argument against humanity that some were making back in the forties.

If the democratic party will not stand for my values then it may be time to find another party. I still think there is hope that the DINOs will not take over the party and the true democrats will actually stand up for what is right.

I can not remember what great philosopher said it but to paraphrase or mangle the quote.

"If you stand in the middle of the road you will get run over"

We are liberal. We stand for treating every single person on the face of this planet with the dignity and support that they have earned. We must not compromise.

[TheFarseer]

34. If John Kerry was the nominee in 2008, it would be very disappointing

I would be very unenthusiastic about his candidacey. I was not enthusiastic about him in 2004 either. I would have to see who the other candidates were before determining if I would vote for him. That said, I very much doubt it would happen.

[politicasista]

36. I didn't say Kerry will be the nominee

Who would you want anyway? Whoever is nominatated is going to have a mess to clean up anyway.

[JackDragna]

38. As well it should be.

I will get behind those fighting for us, but Kerry isn't one of them. Kerry backed down from criticizing Bush on the big issues. He supported the war from its inception all the way through the campaign. He constantly made concessions to conservative issues and always was on the defensive.

I stand in solidarity with those here who believe the Democratic Party must represent something greater than what Kerry represents.

[politicasista]

39. He DID criticize Bush

You were too busy watching CNN or FAUX news. Plus Kerry IS fighting for us. Kerry lost because WE believed the lies of the media and the Democratic Party was unorganized period.

[Dr Ron]

55. It's a shame so many weren't paying attention

Such as when Kerry was taking on Bush even before people like Dean and Clark. (I don't mean this as bashing either. I'm just pointing this out as there names have come up in this discussion).

It's interesting to look back at the newspaper coverage of the early primary race. Early reports describe Kerry as an anti-war candidate (even before Dean). Then Dean managed to falsely equate the IWR with support for the war, and the lazy journalists went along, often calling Kerry pro-war. Finally there were good articles in places like the Des Moines register showing that Dean and Kerry had virtually the same position, which helped Kerry win a majority of the anti-war voters in the early primaries.

[KoKo]

44. Yes...and John McCain said just this week that Kerry approached him/VP

several times. So, he approached McCain (which we DU'ers knew all about and many of us were really angry) and now McCain goes all over DC broadcasting it.

What kind of Dem goes after a Repug to be his VP...Give me a break..:shrug:

[Dr Ron]

48. A Dem who wants to win

Kerry understood how hard it is to beat an incumbent during war time.

Kerry also understood how far Bush is out of the mainstream of real Republican thought. A Kerry McCain ticket would have virtually have guaranteed victory. Therefore, if true, I wouldn't hold considering this agaisnt Kerry.

McCain also said that Kerry never offered him the spot. We don't even know for sure if Kerry was really considering it. McCain may be playing this up to promote himself. Remember, McCain was also claiming to have been Bush's first choice in 2000. I have no idea if he was telling the truth on that--it all might be a product of McCain's ego.

[politicasista]

47. Maybe you all should read Carol Moseley Braun's ariticle. She gets it.

http://www.opednews.com/cardinale_050606_moseley_braun.htm

[Dr Ron]

49. Good article

From the article:

“It’s a mistake to blame John Kerry for the loss to George Bush,” Braun adds.

“There’s an old saying: Success has a thousand parents and failure is an orphan. was a good candidate. The difference had to do with speaking to constituents. George Bush was a standard bearer of an organized political machine. Karl Rove confused and… lied to people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, about the connection between Iraq and 9/11. The did every dirty trick in the book. And they manipulated and mastered the election mechanism,” Braun said.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

51. Huh? What does she "get", exactly?

eom.

[TabulaRasa]

60. We knew all of that going in

None of the shit described ... voter fraud (if it existed on a massive enough scale to flip the election), Republican lies and smears, Republican use of fear, etc. should have been a surprise to anyone with a functional brain. Kerry had a pulpit to speak from for 11 fucking months ... the media would have covered anything he talked about. Did he talk about voting machines? No. Did he call the Republicans out on their lies and smears on him? No, or at least not until it was too late. Did he call them out on their cynical exploitation of fear and the dead of NYC, let alone offer a message of hope and unity? Of course not. He sat on his hands like a chump, worried that saying anything at all would turn off swing voters. If they did these things and got away with it, Kerry has nobody to blame but himself. These factors in no way constitute a defense of Kerry ... on the contrary, they constitute a stirring indictment of him, and his entire campaign.

[Bluebear]

50. Sorry, the gay marriage 'thingy'is not a "wedge issue" for Mass. Democrats

The party in that state is solidly behind gay marriage, which is LEGAL. Kerry found he had to insert his view that it is a "mistake" to endorse it. He could have gracefully said that it is a state's right issue (the Right LOVES states rights except when it comes to gays) but he felt the need to speak against it. He has lost my support for '08. If he didn't bring in the "swing voter" this time, he surely won't three years from now.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

61. Locking at OP's request n/t