In `92, Kerry sent a voter 2 letters: one backing Gulf War & one opposing

[JaneQPublic]

Kerry's staff in 1991 blamed the mixup on a computer error, but it still revealed he had two letters ready, so he could tell his constituents whatever they wanted to hear regarding the Gulf War.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml

On Jan. 22, 1991, Kerry's office sent a letter to a constituent, thanking him for expressing opposition to the deployment of additional US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. "I share your concerns," Kerry wrote, noting that on Jan. 11 he had voted in favor of a resolution opposing giving the president immediate authority to go to war and seeking to give economic sanctions more time to work.

On Jan. 31, the same constituent received a letter stating that, "From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

============

Further details at The New Republic Online:
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Ha!

Here in MA, you're LUCKY to get a word back from Kerry. Kennedy, and my Rep. Olver, for the most part write back very quickly. Kerry? Last time I wrote to him, I received a letter over 6 months later!

[girl gone mad]

2. And then he..

blamed it on computer error, just like he blamed the "I have Irish heritage" gaffe on staffers.

[papau]

5. "I have Irish heritage" was media invention - Globe found he didn't say it

the boston globe was then got angry that he had not written to them to correct the globe when the globe first made the err back in the 80's.

it is never the media's fault if they are screwing a Dem.

[JVS]

3. Wow

way to waffle!

[Lobo_13]

4. I think what's even more damning here

is not that he accidentally sent out different letters to the same person, but that he HAD two different letters for the same subject.

Why can't John Kerry just pick a stand and stay with it?

[dd123]

7. John Kerry doesn't pick stands because he has no convictions

He just says what he thinks people want him to say.

Disgusting.

[creativelcro]

25. Sad but true...

[funky_bug]

6. This is great, but sadly

it will resound only here on DU. The media loves Kerry. They'll bury it... deep deep deep, in a dark hole somewhere... right next to all the positive stuff that Clark has to offer.

[lcordero]

8. Until he gets the nomination

Then they are going to stomp his behind into the ground. I despise his type of "liberalism" so I'm not going to lift so much as a finger to help him.

[IndianaGreen]

9. The GOP will use Kerry as a weapon against Kerry

Kerry's waffles will come back to haunt him in November.

[papau]

10. 1/11/91 vote, 1/16 war -one letter says voted no, 2nd supports troops

what the hell is the problem?

The only "error" in sending out the second letter is that it was draft - not final form - and not clearly worded "strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf" can be read as a "lie" that ignores his vote - and that is why sending it out was in error.

the right wing New Republic will need better than this to show bad character.

[bigtree]

11. You didn't include Sen. Kerry's explaination for the letters.

Those who would oppose John Kerry may or may not accept his explaination for the 1991 letters but he offered one. He offered an upfront explanation. This post is an attempt to smear the Kerry campaign for what the Kerry camp described as a computer error. Will all of the candidates account for all of the literature that has been sent out, often by volunteers?

A mix-up in letters sent doesn't represent anything, despite the attempt by the conservative senior editor of the New Republic, Ramesh Ponnuru who has been critical of most Democrat's inituatives. I could post some stories of his here that would make other candidate's supporters cry.


Here's what the poster left out of the original 1991 story:

"Kerry aides at the time said that a computer error was responsible for the screw-up. The "unequivocal support" letter dated from the previous September, when the Iraqi invasion and American deployment had just happened but senators were not voting on war. Carter should have gotten yet a third letter saying that Kerry had thought war inadvisable but supported the troops. Kerry's press secretary explained that the senator's "position has been 100 percent consistent on this issue."

There is critisism of other candidates in the same story. It is accessible through a link on the page referenced. Each time this story is presented on this board the original story is concealed. The author is not a Democrat. He actively writes against Democrat's interests.

Here's a link to the original story. Folks have to decide whether they are willing to believe all of the conservative author's shit dribbling or just the drivel about John Kerry.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru102502.asp

[JaneQPublic]

15. The New Republic is NOT a conservative publication

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1249

Turns out I was giving Kerry too much credit. Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this "Notebook" item from TNR's March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline "Same Senator, Same Constituent":

=========

And neither is the Boston Globe a conservative publication, which is the source of the information quoted in the original post of this thread:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml

===========

The fact that Kerry explained this away as a "computer error" does not address the really damning aspect of this story: That he in fact had BOTH a pro-war and anti-war letter at the ready, to be sent out to constituents depending on what they wanted to hear.

Talk about being willing to say anything to get elected!

[bigtree]

18. The author is. Check his other stories and judge for yourself

whether you believe all of his conservative blather or just the drivel about John Kerry.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru-archive.asp


· Cracked Safe (01/30)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200401300849.asp

· Investor Class, Investor Nation (01/28)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200401280856.asp

· Clark’s Choice (01/26)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200401260843.asp

· Some Victory (01/22)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200401220917.asp

· Laboratories of Hypocrisy (12/19)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312190913.asp

· Reviewing the Judges (12/12)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312120841.asp

· The Tempting of Conservatism (12/11)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312110800.asp

· Bush vs. Dean (12/10)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312100842.asp
"I'm still confident that Bush will win, for the reasons I mentioned in this space yesterday." he says.

· Can Dean Win? (12/09)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200312090827.asp


More:

· AARP GOP (11/20)
· Marriage Amendment Jitters (11/14)
· An Answer to Frum (11/07)
· Penalty Box (11/06)
· Lieberman vs. Law Enforcement (10/31)
· Protection Racket (10/29)
· How Clark Helps Dean (10/27)
· Some Facts Left Behind (10/16)
· Health Clubs (10/10)
· Pledge Drive (09/24)
· Second Opinions (09/12)
· Uncivil Libertarians (09/08)
· Meet Bobby Jindal (09/05)
· The Reaganite RNC (08/04)
· Yes, They're Anti-Catholic (08/01)
· TVC, Unrepentant (07/23)
· The TVC Scandal: An Update (07/17)
· Values for Sale (07/17)
· Wrong Virtues (07/07)
· Howard Dean and Us (07/02)
· Demystifying the Court (07/01)
· Our Liberal Media (06/30)
· The Perils of Rationality (06/27)
· Hacks (06/18)
· I Still Don't Believe Her (06/04)
· Media Merger Madness (06/03)
· Learning to Love Deflation (05/30)
· Devine Disorder (05/23)
· A Good Deal (05/22)
· Republicans and Gays (05/21)
· Party Crashers (05/20)
· Graham's Cover Up (05/15)
· Gun Fight (05/13)
· Who Should Own Iraq? (05/05)
· Overestimating Sharpton (04/30)
· Jack Kemp and Me (04/28)
· The Teflon Secretary (04/23)
· The War Continues (04/09)
· Kerry Justice (04/09)
· Union Rules (04/08)
· The Curse of Oil (03/28)
· The Democrats' War (03/21)
· Dem Crackup (03/19)
· Roe in the Senate (03/14)
· Do deficits matter? (03/13)
· The Moran Mess (03/12)
· Moran's Ludicrous Spin (03/11)
· Just Carter (03/10)
· Changing the Rules (02/27)
· An Affair to Forget (02/26)
· More Mush from the Times (02/24)
· Sexual Rights (02/21)
· This Land is Costco's Land (02/18)
· Judging Gonzales (02/11)
· Federal Malpractice (01/24)
· Hatch Hates Hate (01/15)
· Tax the Kids (01/14)
· On Not Getting Dividends (01/10)

[JaneQPublic]

21. You've confused The National REPUBLIC with The National REVIEW

The citation in the original post of this thread is from The National REPUBLIC, which is a liberal publication:

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261

The links you provided are to The National REVIEW, which is a very conservative publication.

[bigtree]

22. The original 1991 article appears there

Like it or not, the author, Ramesh Ponnuru, is a conservative with an axe to grind against Democrats.

[JaneQPublic]

23. Ponnuru's Oct. `91 article was not the FIRST one on Kerry's two letters

The story was reported earlier, on March 1991, as a "Notebook" item in The New Republic (note the below dates in bold):

==============

Turns out I was giving Kerry too much credit. Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this "Notebook" item from TNR's March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline "Same Senator, Same Constituent":

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 <1991>

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 <1991>
Will someone PLEASE put this guy out of his misery? Please?
NOTE: Special thanks to TNR reporter-researcher Josh Benson for dredging up this item.

UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru was all over this story back in October of 2002. (As he points out, eerily self-consciously, what better evidence is there that conservatives will use this stuff against Kerry in the general election?)

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261
=====

Actually, it's completely irrelevant WHO broke this story, but discussing help keeps the thread kicked!

[NashVegas]

16. Those Letters Wrote Themselves?

This post is an attempt to smear the Kerry campaign for what the Kerry camp described as a computer error.

Must have been one hell of an advanced computer program.

[blm]

12. Sorry. That was an office aide who erred. Kerry has taken plenty of heat

for it, though, over the years.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Why did Kerry keep two sets of letters then?

I am even more disturbed about Kerry's failure to take responsibility for his own actions. Blaming a clerk for his own errors is a classic CYA tactic.

No wonder Kerry has yet to take responsibility for all the dead and wounded in Iraq that his IWR vote made possible.

Where was Kerry when the war began?

[JVS]

26. Yes, Kerry has managed to fend off attacks on his waffling for years

[WiseMen]

13. Dupe! Can't you find any bimbos or bribery charges. Get to work

[cajun4clark]

14. Gee, what a shock

Aside from the fact that Kerry gets on every side of every issue, aside from the fact that he has no credibility as a "populist" ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4121890/ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31DONA.html?pagewanted=2&hp ) and aside from the fact that he likes to exaggerate about his relatively unimpressive record in the Senate ( http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx? ), the most important reason Kerry does not deserve to be the nominee:

KERRY FAILED TO STAND UP TO BUSH IN OCT 2002 AND INSTEAD VOTED FOR THE IRAQ RESOLUTION. KERRY HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION EXCEPT TO SAY "THE PRESIDENT FOOLED ME." THE TRUTH IS THAT KERRY THOUGHT HE WOULD BE MORE ELECTABLE HAVING SUPPORTED BUSH'S WAR.

The same goes for John Edwards, only he's even worse. He enthusiastically supported the resolution, and as recently as the last debate said that HE COULD NOT SEE HOW ANYONE COULD SAY THAT BUSH EXAGGERATED THE THREAT OF TERRORISM TO GO TO WAR, SINCE WE LOST 3000 PEOPLE ON 9/11.

We have to do better than these guys.

[cajun4clark]

19. Corrected link--sorry

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=134

[bigtree]

20. factcheck.org

Uses old articles and hearsay from John Kerry's peers to claim his ineffectiveness on legislation. John has a strong record of standing up to the republican assault on our budget and the giveaways to big buisness. He has sponsored and co-sponsored hundreds of bills. To blame him or any other Democrat for republican obstinance is a desperate slap at those Democrats that held the line in the face of republican majoritiy's assault on the budget. To knock him for their obstruction is laughable if it weren't so sad.

I guess some here are satisfied to accept the republican steamrolled assault and blame Democrats first.

[JaneQPublic]

24. The title of this thread should say "In `91..." not "`92"

Sorry I didn't notice it until it was too late to edit the original text.