A plea for focus. Focus on the real issues at hand. ABB

[Screaming Lord Byron]

First they came for Howard Dean
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Dean Supporter.
Then they came for Wes Clark,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Clark Supporter.
Then they came for John Kerry,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was not a Kerry supporter.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.


OK, it's sacrilege to rip off Martin Niemoller, and I apologize, but our candidates are getting picked off one by one. Remember ABB. ABB is fundamental. Don't let our opponents dictate to us. Don't buy the distractions, the AWOL story is beginning to stick. Stay on target.

[Padraig18]

1. 'Electability' is part of it, too.

Kerry needs to help himself by issuing a plain, non-nuanced denial. If he doesn't, then he only lends credibility to the allegations.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. It is a tough call. Do you specifically deny and risk giving more exposure

to the story, or do you give a non-specific denial in the hope that you can starve the rumour of Oxygen? I don't know which would work best here.

[Padraig18]

5. Specific denials work best.

The Average Joe will accept that, assuming there's no proof to the contrary. Anything less leaves lingering doubts.

[ludwigb]

14. But what if "it" is true

Of course we don't know what is being alleged. It may have been nothing more than an inappropriate advance.

Kerry can't issue a categorical denial if he doesn't know what he is being accused of yet.

[Padraig18]

15. If 'it' is true, then we're f*cked!

We've lost the middle, if JK has been running after a young woman 35 years younger than he is, even if it didn't end in an affair.

[library_max]

7. One of LBJ's favorite stories

was about a popular Texas sheriff running for reelection. His opponents had been trying unsuccessfully to think of a good campaign issue to use against him. Finally one man suggested spreading 'a rumor that he fucks pigs.' Another protested, 'You know he doesn't do that.' 'I know,' said the first man, 'I just want to make the son of a bitch deny it.'"

[nightperson]

3. Thank you.

If the election was held today, we finally could have someone other than Bush, right? Doesn't that excite people at all? Drudge is more interesting than that?

[Robb]

10. Of course it's exciting.

It's great!!

And of course whoever the nominee is will have my support.

But don't expect me to be thrilled about what feels like "settling".

[forgethell]

4. isn't that what the primaries are about?

to pick off the weaker candidates until only one is left standing? what's the problem here? woulddn't you rather find out your candidates weaknesses in the primaries, so that if he wins it, he will be strengthened for the GE? Or would you rather he and you be surprised in late October?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. No, but vested interests are trying to cripple the candidates.

Dean had the scream. Clark was ignored, considered a kook or a republican plant who had nearly started World War Three. Kerry has this now. What's it going to be for Edwards? I want the party to end up with a candidate who has not been crippled by smears.

[forgethell]

9. Does that mean

that we won't smear the republican candidate? No? the they will certainly smear our boy, whoever, he is. Even if they candidate is inhumanly perfect in personal qualities, there is such a thing as a lie.

These are big boys, they know their own dirty little secrets. If they couldn't stand the heat, as one old Dem once said, they shoulda stayed out of the kitchen.

That being said, I hope the smears don't totally cripple the candidate, either.

[Turkw]

11. But will the media follow it? AWOL should have been an issue in 2000

Will it take four more years for the media to look at the issues we bring up? Will we get the same kind of unequal coverage? It IS happening in the primaries, we have to start trying to stop it now, or we may have it hit us full force in November.

[forgethell]

12. AWOL won't matter

in the long run. Neither, I think will Kerry's affair, whether or not the rummors are true. The country is too polarized and we are all going to vote for 'our' candidate. Frankly, the way I see it, this campaign is going to get so dirty, on both sides, that the independents, the real sheeple that don't know their own minds, will throw up their hands in disgust and stay home, or vote for one of the independent parties.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. independents are sheeple who don't know their own minds?

Sure, that's the way to bring more voters into the party. Have you ever considered that it's arrogance like that which drove people away from the Democratic party in the first place?

Vote for the Democrats, because if you don't you're fucking stupid... of course, you probably are anyway, but at least you'll win.

[forgethell]

16. Not arrogance at all:

I didn't say they had to vote for the Democrat. I said they didn't know their own mind. At this stage, everybody of even the most modest intelligence has the ability to know what the issues are, and what is at stake. If they don't, they don't care. Hence, I consider them sheeple. Well, actually I consider them fools. People that will vote Republican are NOT, in my humble opinion, sheeple. Another diescriptive term may fit them, 'wolves', perhaps. In any event, they have decided that their interest lies with the R*'s, and even if you disagree with that choice, you have to respect the fact that they know what they want. Events may persuade them otherwise, in the future, but anyone who doesn't know which party they need to vote for in the present election, is not paying attention.

[maxanne]

17. and what of

those who don't like the choices?

[library_max]

18. What of them?

It's not an ice cream cone, it's the President of the United States. They're going to get one whether they want it or not. If they can't find one they like, they'd better pick the one they dislike the least. And again, the only sensible pick is from one of the real choices (Republican or Democrat), because the one they're going to get will be one of those.

[maxanne]

46. as long as we

continue to accept that edict, that will be what we continue to get. The lesser of two evils.

[library_max]

48. Yes. Much better to support the GREATER of two evils.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[forgethell]

28. there's always a lesser of two evils

even if the choices are Stalin or Mao. Those that don't vote, get what they deserve.

[maxanne]

47. yup

and by accepting that this is so, we ensure that it always will be.

[library_max]

49. It is so, whether you "accept" it or not.

In any given presidential election, there are only two choices. A third party candidate has never won. A third party candidate has never come close to winning. An enormously popular former president couldn't even do better than to throw the election to his farthest opponent.

Failing to vote or voting third party won't do diddley-squat to change this, but it will help give Bush four more years.

[maxanne]

52. acceptance of crappy

candidates will do nothing to change it either. As long as you chant the third party mantra - nothing will change there either. A third party won't win in 2004 - but presumably there will be other elections in my lifetime.

[library_max]

55. Yes there will be other elections in your lifetime.

And every single one of them will boil down to the Republican vs. the Democrat. And in every single one of them, neither the right nor the left will be 100% happy with the candidate their party is fielding. These are positive certainties.

Politics is never going to start being about what a small minority at one end of the political spectrum wants. Never.

[maxanne]

57. nicely simplified

but as long as we accept empty suits as candidates, we will continue to receive them.

Every single election will boil down to one of two parties? I don't think so. The monopoly will be busted up - just like Ma Bell.

Politics are going to change, in a big way.

[forgethell]

50. Does your 'non-acceptance'

cancel out anything? If you don't accept that a train is coming at you as you lie on the tracks, does that mean you will still be alive tomorrow. We can work for change,get off the track.

[maxanne]

53. i appreciate your optimism

but unless we are willing to get out the big broom and sweep almost everyone out of office, and totally revamp how the party does things, there ain't gonna be a change.

We aren't willing. We are willing to limp along accepting the status quo, and throw a band aid candidate on every election. We are willing to inch further and further to the right - and lose every election as a result.

The train is coming, and it's gonna run right over us unless we take drastic measures.

[Tinoire]

20. Kerry is the one with the most vested interests lining up behind him n/t

[library_max]

8. Kick.

:kick:

[Tinoire]

19. I'm holding out til they come for the candidates you conveniently ignore

Typical DLC ABB crap.

If a campaign that has to rely on ABB to get people's votes, it's pathethic indeed. No suprise though since the DLC has never brought us anything other than collaboration and empty words.

Kucinich & Edwards speak just fine for me and many voters. Dean speaks just fine and he's still speaking just fine.

They can come take Kerry away. His campaign rhetoric is offensive.

"Even though my voting record is pure dog crap- it's only dog crap cuz of Bush"

-Onebigbadwulf

---------------------------------------------------

===
So while it may be true that in that majority of cases the actual outcome of the final passage is not affected by the no vote, the fact is it will not look good in a debate when bush says “Senator Kerry, you missed 63 out of 183 votes in 2003 alone. The American public is not going to look deep enough to really see that it doesn’t matter. All they know is they have to show up for work regardless or they do not get paid.

Everyone is talking about the fact that Kerry voted for the no child left behind act but very few people also know that on 3/11/03, by a slim majority senators successfully tabled the Murry Mmendment #284 to fully fund the NCLB act and reduce debt by reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers. The motion to table succeeded by two vote’s. Guess which 2 Senators did not bother to vote. Kerry and Edwards.

The same thing happened on that day with the Murry Amendment #258 to improve the availability of contraceptives for women. It failed by 2 votes. Once again Senators Kerry and Edwards did not bother to vote their mind.

Other important legislation that Kerry did not bother to vote on were:


To prohibit the procedure know as partial birth abortion….no vote

Vote to make Tom Ridge Sec. of Homeland Security….no vote

#S.151 to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, clearing the measure for the President ….no vote

Boxer Amendment No. 684, to require a specific plan to help AIDS orphans….. No vote

Gregg Amendment No. 945, to ensure that there is competition in the pharmaceutical industry and increased access to affordable drugs. No vote

Dorgan Amendment No. 946, to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals. No vote

FCC Media Ownership bill: S.J. Res. 17, disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership. No vote

S. 877, to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. No vote

H.R. 1828, to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East. No vote

Kyl/Sessions Modified Amendment No. 288, to provide financial security to family farm and small business owners by ending the practice of taxing someone at death. No vote


http://www.uniquesnowflake.com/archives/000585.php

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

A man beholden to the people doesn't skip out on 59% of this year's votes in the Senate where the GOP enjoys a majority. Here is a list of all the votes that Kerry missed. This list does not include the 2 votes during his 2/12-25/03 surgery and recovery.

1: Procedural Motion - Adjourn to Time Certain
2: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security
3: FY 2003 Approp.s - Homeland Security
4: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Block Grants
5: FY 2003 Approp.s - Education Funding
6: FY 2003 Approp.s - Rural Antidrug Program
7: FY 2003 Approp.s - Spending Reinstatement
8: FY 2003 Approp.s - Foreign Cruise Ships
13: Ridge Nomination - Confirmation
14: FY 2003 Approp.s - Unemployment Ins.
15: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief
16: FY 2003 Approp.s - Drought Relief
17: FY 2003 Approp.s - African Famine Relief
18: FY 2003 Approp.s - US AirPension Plan
26: FY 2003 Approp.s - Prohibit Quotas for Job Priv.
31: Adams Nomination - Confirmation
32: Otero Nomination - Confirmation
33: Junell Nomination - Confirmation
36: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance
37: Procedural Motion - Require Attendance
39: Pledge of Allegiance - Adoption
44: Frost Nomination - Confirmation
45: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Emer. Contracep.s
46: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception
47: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Motion to Commit
49: Partial-Birth Abor. Ban - Health Exception
50: Quarles Nomination - Confirmation
51: "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban - Passage
52: Varlan Nomination - Confirmation
53: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
54: Bybee Nomination - Confirmation
55: Breen Nomination - Confirmation
60: FY 2004 Budget Res. - Education Funding
109: Coalition Member Support - Adoption
110: Military Tax Breaks - Passage
111: Selna Nomination - Confirmation
112: Springmann Nomination - Confirmation
114: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
115: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Port Security
116: FY '03 War Supp. - Nat'l. Guard & Reserves
117: FY '03 War Suppl. - Aircraft Missile Def.
118: FY '03 War Suppl. - Ind. Member Projects
119: FY '03 War Suppl. - Counterterror Funding
120: FY '03 War Suppl. - Homeland Security
121: FY 2003 War Supplemental - War Costs
122: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding
123: FY '03 War Suppl. - First Resp'r. Funding
124: FY '03 War Suppl. - Iraqi Food Assistance
125: FY 2003 War Supplemental - Passage
126: Carney Nomination - Confirmation
132: Protections for Children - Conf. Report
133: Swimmer Nomination – Confirmation
135: Sutton Nomination - Confirmation
139: Cook Nomination - Confirmation
140: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
141: Altonaga Nomination - Confirmation
145: FISA Warrants - Feinstein Substitute
146: FISA Warrants - Passage
147: Tax Reductions - On-Budget Surplus
180: Global AIDS Relief - Abstinence Programs
181: Global AIDS Relief - Drug Pricing
182: Global AIDS Relief - AIDS Orphans
183: Global AIDS Relief - Aid to Carib. Nations
184: Hicks Nomination - Confirmation
185: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Reservist Health Care
186: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
187: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
188: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Weapons Study
189: FY '04 Def. Auth. - Nucl. Penetrator Weapons
192: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Overseas Abortions
193: FY 2004 Defense Auth. - Defense Contracts
194: FY 2004 Defense Authorization - Passage
195: Callahan Nomination - Confirmation
202: Debt Limit Increase - Passage
203: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
204: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
205: FY 2004 Defense Authoriz. - Base Closures
206: Energy Policy - Ethanol Requir. Exclusion
211: Chertoff Nomination - Confirmation
216: Greer Nomination - Confirmation
217: Kravitz Nomination - Confirmation
218: Energy Policy - Energy Commodity Trading
219: Energy Policy - Indian Energy Projects
220: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage
223: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Pilot Age Requirements
224: FY 2004 FAA Reauth. - Foreign Repair Stations
225: FY 2004 FAA Reauthorization - Passage
226: Pate Nomination - Confirmation
227: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Within Medicare
228: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Disclosure
229: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Cap
230: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Patents
231: American History and Civics Academies - Passage
232: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Importation
233: Prescription Drug Benefit - Third-Party Coverage
234: Prescription Drug Benefit - Open Enrollment Period
235: Prescription Drug Benefit - Canadian Price Equity
236: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost Sharing Extension
237: Prescription Drug Benefit - Congressional Coverage
238: Prescription Drug Benefit - Two-Year Fallback Plan
239: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Availability
240: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Coverage
241: Prescription Drug Benefit - Employer Compensation
242: Prescription Drug Benefit - Health Centers
243: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements
244: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction
245: Prescription Drug Benefit - Durbin Substitute
246: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost-Effectiveness Studies
247: Prescription Drug Benefit - Disability Services
248: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements
249: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Care
250: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Patient Coverage
251: Prescription Drug Benefit - Asset Test
252: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alzheimer's Subsidy
253: Prescription Drug Benefit - Additional Disease Treatment
254: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction
255: Prescription Drug Benefit - Experimental Drug Coverage
256: Prescription Drug Benefit - Immigrant Coverage
257: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Coverage
258: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medigap Policies
259: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Fallback Plan
260: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alternative Plan
261: Prescription Drug Benefit - Means Test
262: Prescription Drug Benefit - Passage
263: Campbell Nomination - Confirmation
264: Medical Malpractice - Cloture
265: Wolski Nomination – Confirmation
266: Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed
267: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthorization - Mexico City Policy
269: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauth. - Unemployment Insurance
270: FY 2004 State Dept. Reauthoriz. - HIV/AIDS Funding
272: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - AmeriCorps
273: FY 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations - Passage
274: FY 2004 Military Construction Appropriations - Passage
275: Der-Yeghiayan Nomination - Confirmation
276: Suko Nomination - Confirmation
277: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Troop Deployments
278: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Cost of Iraq Operations
279: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Detainees
280: Myanmar Sanctions - Passage
281: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraq War Costs
282: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Military Health Care
283: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Iraqi Reconstruction
284: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Iraqi Intel. Commission
285: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Unauthorized Approp.s
286: FY 2004 Defense Approp.s - Overseas Military Funding
287: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Intelligence Funding
288: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - HIV/AIDS Funding
289: Duncan Nomination - Confirmation
290: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Passage
291: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Approp.s Increase
292: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Law Enforcement Costs
293: FY '04 Hom. Sec. Appr. - Emer. Mgmt. Planning Grants
294: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Port Security
295: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Explosive Device
296: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Firefighter Grants
297: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Chemical Plant Sec.
298: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Approp.s - Canadian Border Sec.
299: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr - First Responder Funding
300: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Maritime Security
301: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas
302: FY '04 Homeland Sec. Appr. - High-Threat Urban Areas
303: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr. - Federal Advisory Boards
304: FY 2004 Homeland Security Approp.s - Transit Security
305: FY 2004 Homeland Sec. Appr.s - Lobbying Restrictions
306: FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations - Passage
307: Yeakel Nomination - Confirmation
308: Owen Nomination - Cloture
309: Energy Policy - Fuel Economy Standards
310: Energy Policy - Fuel Economy Standards
311: Energy Policy - Price Manipulation
312: Estrada Nomination - Cloture
313: Energy Policy - Utility Mergers
314: Energy Policy - Standard Market Design
315: Energy Policy - Internal Transactions
316: Pryor Nomination - Cloture
317: Energy Policy - Passage
318: U.S.-Singapore Trade - Passage
319: U.S.-Chile Trade - Passage
320: Cohn Nomination - Confirmation
321: Montalvo Nomination - Confirmation
322: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - Hispanic Edu. Prog.s
323: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Approp.s - Impact Aid
324: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - IDEA Funding
325: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Job Training
326: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Rural Edu. Grants
327: Colloton Nomination - Confirmation
328: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr..s - Bioterr. Workforce
329: 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - School Construction
330: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Title I Funding
331: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Higher Education
332: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - HIV/AIDS Funding
333: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Approp.s - Head Start
336: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - LIHEAP Assist.
339: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - Fin. Aid Eligibility
340: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - After-school Progr.s
341: FY '04 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr. - Safe Child./Fam. Prom.
342: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr.s - Education Funding
343: FY '04 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr. - Teacher Quality Progr.s
344: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Appr..s - After School Progr.s
345: FY '04 Lab.-HHS-Ed. App.. - W. Nile/Mosquito Control
346: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Edu. Approp.s - NIH Funding
347: FY 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations - Passage
348: Media Ownership Rule Disapproval - Passage
349: FY 2004 Energy/Water Appr.s - Adv. Nucl. Weapons 350: FY 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations - Passage
351: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - Disagree to House Amend.
352: Proctor Nomination - Confirmation
353: Feuerstein Nomination - Confirmation
354: Conrad Nomination - Confirmation
355: Floyd Nomination - Confirmation
356: FY 2004 Interior Appropriations - Indian Health Service
357: Gibson Nomination - Confirmation
358: FY 2004 Interior Approp.s - National Mall Ad Ban
359: FY 2004 Interior Appr.s - Judicial Review of Timber Sales
360: FY 2004 Int. Appr.s - Competitive Sourcing Annual Rept.
361: FY 2004 Int. Appr.s - Compet. Sourcing Rev. Prohibition
362: FY 2004 Interior Appr.s - Indian Health Service Funding
363: Burns Nomination - Confirmation
364: FY 2004 Defense Appropriations - Conference Report
365: Do-Not-Call Registry - Passage
366: Sabraw Nomination - Confirmation
367: Mosman Nomination - Confirmation
368: Bea Nomination - Confirmation
369: Crone Nomination - Confirmation
370: White Nomination - Confirmation
371: FY 2004 Suppl. for Iraq/Afghanistan - Iraqi Reconstruc.
376: FY 2004 Suppl. for Iraq/Afghanistan - Safety Equipment
377: Genetic Nondiscrimination - Passage
378: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Iraqi Lib. Medal
379: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Domestic Spending
380: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Reconstr. Financing
381: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Mil Res. Retire. Age
382: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Add'l Army Personnel
383: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Congressional Report
384: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Removal Of Saddam
398: FY 2004 Supp. Iraq/Afghanistan - Cong. Approval

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3073

I welcome you to take this list with a grain of salt since it is from a Republican Web-site (which means they are already making an issue of it as am I because it calls into question Kerry's dedication & integrity about representing the people) but it is easily verifiable by going here:
http://capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/issuesdbq/votesearch.dbq?command=member2& ...
It is interesting to note that no votes affecting the Telecommunications Industry were missed.

====

Kerry - like Bush - has recruited an army of 'bundlers' who skip around strict campaign finance laws by gathering $2,000 cheques from friends and employees into bundles of $50,000 or $100,000. Kerry has 32 $100,000 bundlers and 87 $50,000 bundlers. They come mainly from powerful law firms, real estate companies, financiers and lobbyists.

Kerry has received more money from lobbyists over the past 15 years than any other serving senator. Some of Kerry's close links with lobbyists have raised eyebrows among supporters used to his campaign slogan: 'From the moment I take up office, I will stand up to special interests.'

Kerry has strong ties to lobbyists for the telecommunications industry. Michael Whouley, a top Kerry political aide, is a registered lobbyist for telecoms giant AT&T. Kerry has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Boston lobbying firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky. Kerry's brother Cameron is a lawyer for the company which represents communications firms and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

Between 1999 and 2002 Kerry sponsored two law bills and co-sponsored six more that were seen as advantageous to CTIA's interests. One of Kerry's main bundlers, Chris Putala, is employed as a lobbyist by the CTIA. 'We are beyond the point of whether he takes money from special interests, but rather what, if anything, has been done in response to the funds,' said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the Centre for Responsive Politics watchdog.

<snip>

But Paul Davis, co-founder of internet firm Predictive Networks, has seen the process of how fundraising and legislation mix. Kerry met a top Predictive executive on 25 July, 2000. A day later Kerry introduced a Senate bill that would allow internet firms to monitor what their consumers were viewing and that Predictive had been lobbying for. In February 2002 Predictive chief executive Devin Hosea threw a fundraiser for Kerry in Boston. Kerry was given a lift back to Washington DC in a private jet. Hosea threw a second fundraising party that summer. In the end Hosea become one of Kerry's $100,000 'bundlers' .

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1148524,00.html

[Screaming Lord Byron]

21. Actually, I'd vote for Kucinich. And I wouldn't touch the DLC

Kucinich hasn't been attacked. I was trying to bring supporters of those candidates I'd named together. Still, thanks for the burn.

[Tinoire]

25. You should be able to bring people together without this ABB crap

The frenzied cries of ABB from Kerry supporters are getting extremely tiresome.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

26. Fair enough. I was more annoyed at being distracted from the AWOL

offensive. We were just getting somewhere.

[Tinoire]

27. The AWOL issue is still here though

I also don't think it's that important. We will never ever convince Bush supporters that Bush didn't serve. They can bury their heads deeper than any Democrtat this side of Paradise and Bush can have a new DD214 printed as easily has he had his drivers' license re-printed.

As a retired vet, I find it galling that this is something the Kerry campaign wants to make an issue of- who served and who didn't.

I've foreseen the script to this story for a while. Weaken Bush based on whether he served or not and then roll out 2 war heroes (Kerry and Clark) to dazzle the masses. We won't really focus on any burning issues- we can't because all Bush has to say is "if I was so wrong, why did you vote for them?" & in the long run Bush and Kerry can't differ enough on anything substantial. All Bush has to do on Kerry is pull some stupid NAFTA stunt. Bring a few jobs back, suddenly appear as minimally anti-NAFTA as he needs to placate some not-very-bright people to whom he will say "Don't like NAFTA- don't blame me- Clinon and Kerry brought that to you. I agree it's flawed (more finger-pointing) but I wasn't there to write it. I've been working at tweaking it for 4 years and now that our security is is pretty much assured, here's what else I'm going to do to tweak it". ((or some garbage like that)).

There has got to be more to our fight than military service and ABB. I'm really sorry for being such a pain but that's just how I see it.

Also I'm curious about your comment re the DLC because Kerry is DLC through and through. What did that mean? Thanks

[Screaming Lord Byron]

31. The way I look at it is that my focus is the removal of Bush

You might say I have very few principles beyond that. The fact that Kerry is DLC is certainly a minus, but if he's the chosen candidate to beat Bush, I can get behind that. I am a socialist myself, but a pragmatic one, and as far as I see it, the fundamental factor is the removal of the neo-con cabal. I don't like the DLC at all, but it isn't PNAC.
If I'm voting for a candidate, I'd vote for Kucinich, but I'm enough of a realist to know he has little chance. So I'll back Kerry. Not my first choice, but I'll compromise for the greater good.

[Tinoire]

34. Then you're a greater person than I

Edwards is about as far as I can comprimise right now. And that would be a LOT of compromise for me already. The DLC may not be PNAC per se but they've certainly signed PNAC letters, worked closely with the AE, and willingly enabled PNACs advancement. What was Yugoslavia if not step 1 of PNAC? I fail to see what good it will do to replace Bush with someone whose main difference is throwing a few larger crumbs to the American people. What about Columbia? What about the rest of the world? What about Monsanto? What about NAFTA? What about future wars and occupation? What about Venezuela and any other country that refuses to let the dollar be OPEC's dominating currency? To me that is the greater good and a greater good that will help all Americans. NAFTA? If we don't fix NAFTA now, no jobs are coming back. All the tweaking in the world won't do it- not at our standard of living which needs to be guaranteed by plundering the natural & labour resources of the 2nd & 3rd world. Also, if we don't fix NAFTA now, millions of people in this world are doomed to have their utilities, water included, "privatized" since that language is cemented into the treaty. Companies like Bechtel are salivating for their pro-NAFTA Bush or their pro-NAFTA Kerry. I can't do that. Not after having lived in a country whose resources were brutally expolited and seeing what the water privatization did to the majority of the people.

For that, I'll back Kucinich (who would have a great chance if people would spend a little less time repeating he's unelectable and do a little more work to make him so), Dean (who galls the machinery) and Edwards who has the saving grace of being anti-NAFTA.

Compromise can't be 100% & that's what I'm feeling with Kerry. Glad you can see it differently.

[library_max]

22. Gee, that was helpful.

So the next logical step is for someone to post four pages of hatred against one of the candidates you prefer. To help us in the general election, of course. And the beat goes on . . . :(

[maxanne]

30. facts are now

considered hatred?

[library_max]

32. Gee, I guess it depends

on how they are selected and presented. If they are selected and presented with hatred, then yeah.

[maxanne]

33. facts are merely facts

and if you take issue with them, I'd suggest you try to disprove them, rather than try to imbue them with emotional characteristics.

[library_max]

35. So if the media endlessly replayed Howard Dean's "scream,"

then that was perfectly fair, because it was a "fact"?

Of course it wasn't fair. It was a cheap shot. It was overemphasized and taken out of context. It's entirely possible to do that with facts, you know.

[maxanne]

36. one of these things

is not like the other....

The scream was a fabrication. You haven't proven that Tinoire's material is incorrect or fabricated, you're just complaining that they've been posted here. Do you object to factual information being presented, here at DU?

[library_max]

38. A fabrication?? It was video footage!!

Are you saying that the footage was mocked up and faked? That Howard Dean did not actually say those words and make that sound in New Hampshire?

No? Then it was a fact and not a fabrication. I have no interest in emphasizing it. I am only trying to use it to demonstrate that "facts" can be used unfairly, and even hatefully, depending on how they are selected and presented. Sometimes it's very hard to see through our own bias - "facts" that we like are okay, "facts" that we don't like are "fabrications."

[maxanne]

39. you know very well

the story behind the microphones.

Nice try at diversion.

Facts you don't like are hateful - that's the bottom line. Again - I challenge you to refute them, instead of giving them emotional characteristics.

[library_max]

40. Critical thinking courses are widely available.

Most of them explain how "facts" can be selected, taken out of context, and presented in such a way as to give a totally unfair and misleading impression. Some of them also feature exercises in how to look beyond our own personal biases.

[maxanne]

41. in other words

you've got nothin - you just don't want to hear the truth. Don't let me interfere any further.

[Tinoire]

43. Why don't you go research that material and get back to us?

It would be good practice for when the Republicans come at you with it or do you think head-burying until they do and then wailing that they "hate" us will be a better choice?

[library_max]

44. Oh yeah, I'm sure the Republicans

will be coming after Kerry for letting so many Republican measures pass in the Senate. LOL.

Senators miss votes. Over twenty years, senators miss hundreds of votes. They tend to miss a few more when they are running for president. This may impress you, but it won't impress voters. Where did you get this cut-and-paste, anyway, that you obviously didn't research yourself but expect me to run out and research for you?

[maxanne]

54. the research

Tinoire was suggesting you do was for YOUR benefit. It's clear you aren't interested in challenging your point of view.

[library_max]

56. Maybe I have yet to be inspired

by the "open-mindedness" on the other side of this argument.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

23. You're right. Let's focus on issues. ABB is NOT an issue.

ABB is some kind of loyalty oath foisted upon others. ABB is about basing your support on what you think other people think (aka "electability") rather than seeking an open airing of issue positions and past records. ABB is the tactic of motivating people to vote based on fear, rather than seeking to inspire them with hope.

[nolabels]

37. Should we take issue with the states that already went and voted

Make up our own issues, go with crowds like lemmings or just do other things and not take issue with it? There are always a plus and minus to all things. Maybe we could even examine our selfs to see if we expecting things to exceed our expectations rather than go below them.

It might not even make that much difference how any of this seems. Sometimes you have to deal with the hand you are dealt. Lambasting one in favor over another only serves the purpose to make others angry. One don't need a whole lot of clues to to know were such concepts like originate from.

In any exercise that has competition one must anticipate the moves of others, whether they occur or not.

No one person can cure all the ills of the world but working together we can fix a few of them. Neglect borne out of apathy yields few results

[IrateCitizen]

45. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

Was this a response to me? If so, could you make your point a little more clearly? After reading this, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

[funky_bug]

24. Beautiful!

Printed and posted above my monitor.

[RichM]

29. ABB: proof that many Democrats embrace mindless slogans, & value

loyalty oaths more than focus on real issues. :puke:

[mdmc]

42. Haig in 2004

ABB

[tobius]

51. Write in Coulter 2004

ABB
</sarc.>