Why are Kerryites so sensitive?

[Sorry.]

Recurring theme on here of threads telling Kerry-critics to get the hell in line behind "our guy".

I was just wondering why? Surely the point of this place (and internal party politics in general) is to voice criticism. It's the lifeblood of any political party.

Come on, you people aren't Republicans, you don't just play follow the leader for the sake of it. If there are sticking points air them, if you wish it were someone else air that too.

If you want Kerry to be 'your candidate' you better kick and scream to make him 'your candidate'. Otherwise he'll be marooned in Washington surrounded by special interests, totally divorced from rank and file Democrats.

A little of the Democratic Centralism me thinks.

[sandnsea]

1. GEORGE FREAKIN' BUSH

Do we live in the same goddamn country? On the same goddamn planet? What the hell GOOD is accomplished by pissing on Kerry? You WANT Bush for 4 more years?

[Sorry.]

3. huh?

since when does criticism imply wanting Bush? You can't just scream 'with us or against us' ffs.

[sandnsea]

13. What GOOD does it do?

Please explain. The result of railing against Kerry is George W. Bush. It's a waste of energy, it's discouraging, it's counter-productive. If you really want Bush out, you better go to work for Kerry. Or go to work for some issue group that you care about to help attack Bush. Why waste your time attacking Kerry? Again, what does it accomplish?

[Classical_Liberal]

15. Making Kerry take better positions

That what.

[orwell]

24. ?

Candidates do not look at message boards to set campaign strategy.

O

[blondeatlast]

124. I wouldn't be so sure about that...

[LWolf]

167. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1483649

[sandnsea]

34. 20 years in Congress

And you think he doesn't know his positions? Besides, most of what people post around here aren't his positions in the first place. They're twisted distortions of his position. Posted by people who are either set in the rhetoric of the primaries and refuse to recognize that a whole lot of what their own candidates said was just politics. Posted by people who see the world through their rigid eyes just as surely as people on the far right see the world through their rigid eyes. The only thing that ranting against Kerry does is help George Bush get elected. That's the only thing. There's plenty of time to scream at Kerry AFTER he gets elected.

[mouse7]

45. Making sure Bush wins.

That's what.

[Sorry.]

25. look

politics doesn't end at the ballot box. It happens in your workplace in your local party branch, in your labor unions, shopping centers and in the streets. Getting Kerry elected is a tiny tiny tiny piece of the puzzle - just clapping when the new president gets elected won't change shit.

Once he gets elected Kerry will find himself surrounded by special interest lobbies and permanent federal government staff all with long term agendas. With problems that can't be sorted without radical change. The line of least resistance for any politician is the maintenance of the status quo. After all, his re-election is dependent on centrist swing voters. He needs to know that the Democrat left will keep him honest.

[sandnsea]

35. AFTER he gets elected

That's the time to do your ranting and raving. Right now, it just helps Bush.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Taverner]

97. In short: we have to

Right now it's balls-to-the wall. Our very Freedom depends on this. If Bush wins, bye bye Democracy, bye bye prosperity, bye bye freedom of speech.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. What the hell good is accomplished by agreeing with Bush

On Iraq, On Israel, on the PNAC agenda (no matter how you polish a turd, it's still shit, and PPI is still PNAC)

[sandnsea]

37. Twisted distortions

Just like I posted above. I really don't know why you choose not to see the differences between Bush and Kerry. I really don't. He's the one that's fought all the CIA puppet regimes for the last 20 years. And you think he just has amnesia about all the shit this country has done? Wake the fuck up. He didn't want to go into Iraq. He doesn't want to militarily dominate the world. He wants to bring our troops home from all over the world. But you just ignore all of that because it serves some sick, demented need to put all Democrats and Republicans in one barrel. Anarchist mentality I guess. I don't know. I don't understand it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Are you denying that Kerry voted for Bush's war and supports Sharon's.....

...insane fascist arpatheid/attempted genocide?

KERRY said he supported this shit. Nobody's making it up.

[mouse7]

63. You are insulting Dean's legacy.

Dean said defeating Bush is by far the most important item on the agenda. You trash Kerry, you're trashing Dean and Dean's wise choice to see that dumping Dumbya is the most important thing for Democrats to do.

[AntiCoup2K4]

79. And you insult Cynthia McKinney by accepting PNAC agendas

Dean kept his word that he would remain loyal to the party. Doesn't mean he agrees with the agenda. I made no such promise. I've been a Democrat all my life, so it wouldn't be easy to give up on the party, but I simply will not vote for a PNAC'er. If Kerry wants my support, he will rebuke this fascist agenda and disassociate himself from anyone involved with it.

[mouse7]

84. Cynthia McKinney and Dean support Kerry vs. Bush

I think you're just making up shit as you go along now.

If you don't want to support Kerry, fine. Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you're leaving the Democratic party and DU.

[TLM]

140. Way to dodge the question....

Worthy of Kerry himself.

[mouse7]

147. Take that Howard Dean icon down

You don't reperesent anything Dean stands for.

[TLM]

148. Personal attacks

are hardly a suitable substitute for substantive debate.

[mouse7]

151. You're right.

What's your excuse for making so many?

[sandnsea]

74. Twisted distortion

I'm not even going to go down the war vote path again. As to Sharon's "insane fascist arpatheid/attempted genocide?", what the hell do you think the Arabs have been engaged in for 50 years? As to the plan to pull out of Gaza and keep 5 settlements on the West Bank, it "could" work, that's what Kerry said. And he supports the efforts to make it work. It's going to take compromise to reach a solution, neither side is going to get everything they want. Ranting and raving and refusing to budge doesn't help anything, for the Israelies or the Palestinians.

Do you seriously believe there would BE an Israel if the Palestinians got full right of return and took over the country? Or do you just not care?

[AntiCoup2K4]

82. It's one thing to support Israel's rights as a nation

Another entirely to support a war criminal butchering fascist like Ariel Sharon and the Likud party who are proven fascists and the co-creators of PNAC. Kerry supports Sharon. He has said so on more than one recent occasion, even supporting the tribute to the Berlin Wall.

[sandnsea]

93. It's that simple, is it?

Foreign policy by sound byte, is that it? Kerry makes a statement that he thinks Sharon wants peace, and suddenly everything he's said or thought about Sharon for years is ignored. Kerry supports whatever efforts to move forward on some sort of peace process, and suddenly he supports the butchering fascist Sharon. Kerry supports Irael's right to exist and defend itself, and suddenly he supports EVERY action taken by Sharon. And he has only said he understands Israel building the wall, but also sees it as a barrier to peace.

You can't see both sides of the Israel/Palestine problem? Kerry does. I would much rather have a President who sees both sides and has committed to active engagement than what we've got now. You think Bush is going to resolve the problem?

[no name no slogan]

162. You need to check your history

Israel has been the AGRESSOR in all but one of its wars against the Arabs-- the lone exception being 1973, when the Egyptians pre-emptively attacked Israel when it became clear that they were not going to leave the territories they illegally occupied after the 1967 war.

Israel did NOT accept the 1948 partition of Palestine, even though it got 50% of the land while only having 10-20% of the total population. It forced out the Palestinian population of Jewish territories and even took land beyond its UN-prescribed borders with its superior armed forces. Even in 1948, its army was superior to that of the surrounding Arab nations who came to the aid of the fledgling Palestine state.

Israel still has the largest, most powerful army in the region, and is also the only power in the Middle-East that possesses WMDs and NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Unlike the other known nuclear powers, Israel also refuses IAEA inspectors into the country-- even Saddam Hussein allowed them in. Do you honestly think that ANY nation would dare to invade Israel, given this very common knowledge?

Israel (along with the US) continues to oppose ANY attempt for it to honor UN Resolution 242, which calls for Israel's withdrawal from the territories it seized in 1967-- including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian culture and commerce.

The majority of the Arab world acknowledges Israel's right to exist. The Saudi Plan of 2002 is widely supported among the Arabs and among many dovish Israelis as well. The Saudi Plan calls for Israel to withdraw from its occupied territories in return for "normalized" diplomatic and trade relations with the rest of the Arab world-- in essence, honoring the terms of UN resolution 242.

The Arabs and the rest of the world supports UN 242, as it's clearly the only way for Israel to achieve a lasting peace. The only opponents are the hawkish Israelis and the US government, which refuses to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians to their own sovereign state, consisting of the land Isreal took in 1967, including East Jerusalem and the dismantling of ALL Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Until Israel and the US accept these terms, the conflict will continue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. because we REALLY REALLY want to defeat DUBYA

[sangh0]

4. Why are you so sensitive?

Surely the point of this place (and internal party politics in general) is to voice criticism

If this is a place to voice criticism, why are you so sensitive when Kerry supporters criticize you? Why has something that you call "the lifeblood of any political party" led you to call your fellow Democrats names like "Republicans", "Centrists", "follow the leader", etc/

IOW, Why are YOU so sensitive?

[Sorry.]

12. it's hardly ciriticism

to turn round and simply say, "you don't like Kerry, therefore you want Bush to win" like a great deal of people on here. Or to persistently accuse them of having strange ulterior motives or being serial whiners.

[sangh0]

52. Why are you so sensitive?

So what if it's not really criticism? Why are you so sensitive?

Are you so sensitive that you can't even answer the question "Why are you so sensitive?"

[Sorry.]

61. ok

I'm sensitive because after 19 years of Margaret bloody Thatcher in 1997 we finally thought we cracked it by getting the Labour Party elected. What we got was the same Thatcherite shite but paid for by union subscriptions.

I know that just because it says "leftist" on the tin, the stuff inside won't necessarilly be any good.

[sangh0]

64. Why are you so sensitive?

I didn't ask for your personal history. I asked why you are so sensitive that criticism so mild that even you call it "hardly criticism" has upset you so much that you had to start a thread about it.

I know that just because it says "leftist" on the tin, the stuff inside won't necessarilly be any good.

I didn't ask why you criticize. I asked why you are so sensitive.

Why are you so sensitive?

[TLM]

142. Funny... i would think that someone's history

dealing with politics would explain quite clearly their current sensitivity to political subjects.


Oh but then that would be obvious to someone looking for an anser... and not simply a tangent to use as a distraction tactic to avoid point which they simply are unable to address.

[sangh0]

161. It's funny that you think you've thought about this at all

If you really had put any thought into it, the question is why he is sensitive to criticism (which is so mild that even he calls it "hardly criticism") , which has nothing to politics.

That would have be obvious to someone looking for an answer, and not simply a tangent to use in order to make a subtle personal attack.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

129. Exactly

:crazy:

[JVS]

159. good point

[GalleryGod]

69. Hey look Mommy I got a Thread Goin'!

GFY

[blm]

5. Why do antiKerryites distort Kerry's positions and actual record

in their quest to validate their perception that he is not much different than Bush?

I have no problem with ACCURATE charges against Kerry, I have a couple of my own criticisms of his campaign. I DO bristle at outright lies and distortions and the possible motivations of those who employ that tactic. Leaving them unrefuted is not a path to success in November.

[still_one]

14. because they really want bush to win

so in their infinite wisdom, after four more years of bush the people will be so outraged that a "true" progressive will win hands down.

Not only will they be wrong about that, but through redistricting they will control Congress, the executive, and judicial branch for at least the next 20 years.

[Sorry.]

21. really?

you know this for a fact? you know that all the critics want Bush to win?

What about all the people who are critical but will vote for Kerry? Are they secretly hoping he'll lose as well?

Or is it just blind prejudice to whoever doesn't fall in? My way or the highway ...

[still_one]

27. It doesn't matter

that is what the reality of the situation will be.

If the Democrats appear divided they will lose for sure. If they appear united they may have a chance

[SW FL Dem]

136. Sorry can you vote - you said you lived in England n/t

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

113. Nope. I've never accused anyone here of being a Bush supporter.

Unlike the high strung cheerleader squad has done dozens of times here in the last 24 hours.

[TLM]

141. I have no problem with ACCURATE charges against Kerry

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Now that's a good one.

Like the Iraqi info minister saying there are no US troops in Baghdad.

[freetobegay]

6. I am not a "Kerryites"

But I am a realist. Kerry is going to be the one running against chimp come November!

I see no good in defaming Kerry when he is the nominee, except maybe to try to make the chimp look good.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. You're a little late to this party.

You had a year of primaries and campaigns to do just that, and where were you? Now's the time to show a unified front. Read the rules.

[Sorry.]

16. ????

the process of constructive criticism of government (and prospective) government is ongoing. What does a unified front mean? "You there, silence - criticism of the leader may damage his chances!" Frightening.

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Wrong.

Read the rules:
"The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

In other words, you're free to spout off, just not here.

[bitchkitty]

158. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate

Did you miss that part, maybe?

[ArkDem]

164. Gentlemen, we have two basic rules here at the rock;

The first rule is 'obey all rules'

The second rule is 'do not write on the walls as it is very hard to get writing off the walls'

[mouse7]

8. Chief Justice Charles Pickering

Your criticism makes it more likely that we will see a Chief Justice Charles Pickering within 2 years.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

44. You campaign disruption ensure Bush will start draft in a year.

You're the one trying to ensure Bush wins.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

51. Then you can't handle the truth.

Your doing nothing but ensuring Bush wins. Kerry is the nominee. He has won the delgates necessary to clinch the nomination and these delegates are pledged to him through the first floor vote at the convention. Kerry IS THE NOMINEE.

If you don't want to support the Democratic Party nominee, it's you who isn't a Democrat, and you who is attempting actions which aid the Bush campaign.

Howard Dean has told you to support the nominee. You insult Howard Dean's legacy with your rants.

[TLM]

149. Funny I think you insult Kerry...

With your very Bush like, "you're with us or against us" mentality.


But then maybe being more and more like bush isn't and insult to Kerry's legacy, but rather emulation of it.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

157. Howard Dean has Asked us to support the nominee

He has not TOLD us to support the nominee.
I was at a speech he gave at the New School recently.
I know what he said. He didn't TELL us to do anything except follow our consciences. He hopes we support the nominee.

[Submariner]

9. Because GWB is such a Yellowbelly Chickenhawk Coward

it is a waste of time and bandwidth to criticize a real leader, a real man, when all our energy should be put into ousting the election stealer from office. That is why we Kerryites are so sensitive.

[still_one]

10. I believe in free and open ideas

and I sincerely believe that bush WILL win this election. The repugs will remain united even if they disagree. The Democrats on the other hand will self-destruct because they will insure that any disagreements they have with Kerry will be used by their opponents.

Hey, I hear both Nader supporters, and some of the left wing of the party say that because Kerry does not believe in an immediate withdrawl from Iraq there is no difference between bush and Kerry.

My money is on bush winning the election. In fact, it may not even be as close as some are saying...

[orwell]

31. Bet Smart

The first step in removing Bush from office is for those who oppose him to see him out. If you allow yourself to believe that he will win, you contribute to the collective mind that can enable it.

Put your psychic money on Kerry, on the outside, running away.

O

[DenverDem]

11. They know that Kerry is bushler lite

but that's the best we can do "so shut up and get on board". They are touchy because deep in their souls they feel pangs of guilt for compromising to the Power Elite, whether they realize it or not.

It is unfortunate that we have a candidate that will make no substantive changes in the issues of corporate globalism and corporatist control of our government that are so desparately needed to give America a chance to build a sustainable economy and a truly democratic government, but Kerry will at least wrest control from the absurdly corrupt Carlisle Group faction of the Power Elite.

Yes, bushler is Satan incarnate, but Kerry is no Saviour. Still I'll vote for and work for his election while wishing we could have had Kucinich.

[sandnsea]

18. Kucinich???

God, you people just live in a world of your own. Look at this country. You believe Kucinich could be elected President here?

What Kerry people did is give you the BEST alternative to Kucinich who actually CAN be elected. The most liberal President we've ever had, that's who John Kerry would be.

You should be ecstatic over John Kerry. You really should. He's a damn sight better than Lieberman.

[still_one]

19. I love that commitment

I am now convienced that bush will have another four years.

[DenverDem]

26. If Kerry can't beat a traitorous, incompetent boob

then America deserves what they get.

[still_one]

28. I understand

but what about the people who don't vote for bush, do they deserve it?

[blondeatlast]

125. Congratulations--you summed up the entire thread!

:toast:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[still_one]

33. Who did you vote for in the last election?

[Angry Black Man]

36. W.E.B. DuBois

actually, it's none of your damn business. What does that have to do with THIS election?

[orwell]

17. Defeat DeShrub

Many are a more than a little upset with the inability of the anti-Kerry die hards to accept the fact that he is the nominee. I just replied to a thread where once again someone was talking about the possibility of searching for a new Dem nominee. Get a clue.

The primaries are over. Kerry is the nominee. He is the only one who can defeat Bush. Nader can't. He is not an option. Neither are any of the other Dem primary candidates. So it rankles those of us who demand Bush out of office when we see people ostensibly on a mission to derail the Democratic candidate.

On another note, there are a some closet pro-Bushies posting on this site to stir up trouble. So people get defensive when they smell trolls.

O

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[DenverDem]

43. I was thinking maybe the innane PRO Kerry babblers are actually Publicans.

If electability means pro corporate globalism then what is the point?

[blm]

71. Show me Kerry's poor environmental record.

Show me Kerry's poor labor record.

Show me the corporate pac money.

[DenverDem]

77. Show me his anti free trade record.

That's the crux of the biscuit.

[blm]

83. Kerry is for FAIRER free trade with environmental protections

and labor protections. He'll use the bully pulpit to promote that policy. What do you think Kyoto was all about?

Now show me Kerry's poor environmental record and poor labor record. Then I'll believe he is a corporatist shill.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

105. You're right! Kerry is NOT Pro-Isolationism and Pro-Trade War

Yep. Kerry is not for ignoring reality that we live in an international trade scenario and is not willing to start a trade war that would cause a global depression.

[Angry Black Man]

80. Kerry... Business as usual in Washington

From AP:

At least three times in his Senate career, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees, records show.

In one case, Kerry wrote to the Federal Housing Finance Board to urge the reappointment of a candidate just one day before a Kerry campaign committee received $1,000 from the nominee, the records show.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/2_6camp.htm

[mouse7]

86. Then vote for Bush, ABM

You hate Kerry so much, vote for Bush.

Just quit pretending to support anything but a neo-con, ABM.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

91. Karl Rove and George Bush say "Thank you for your support"

you doing exactly what Rove, Bush and Cheney want you to do. They thank you for your help in getting Bush a second term.

[AntiCoup2K4]

110. And again....

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[blm]

107. If Gore was president there would be no Iraq war.

btw, was Nader leading antiwar protests like Kucinich?

I trust Kucinich's credentials and whoever he ends up supporting.

I also believe that Nader will support Kerry in the long run. They were longtime partners on Nixon's enemy list and beyond when Nader helped Kerry expose IranContra criminals when many Democrats in Congress were ready to drop further investigations.

[AntiCoup2K4]

95. "Just quit pretending to support anything but a neo-con"

...take your own advice. If Kerry continues to promote neocon policy, will you support him?

[mouse7]

96. I'm supporting the Democratic Party nominee to defeat Bush

You have no problem with helping Bush win.

[TLM]

144. I'm supporting the Democratic Party nominee to defeat Bush

...if not bush's policy agenda.


But hey... as long as the faces change, what does it matter if it's business as ususal.

[mouse7]

145. Howard Dean would tell you to take his icon down

You don't represent anything Dean stands for at all. Dean would deplore your conduct.

[TLM]

143. Why do you hate merica?

you are either for us or against us... right?


And THIS is supposed to be an alternative to Bush way of thinking?

[mouse7]

146. Take that Howard Dean icon down

Dean would stand for your rubbish for a second.

[TLM]

150. Take that danger mouse icon down...

DM would stand for your rubbish for a second.



Oh and let me know when you come up with something substantive to say.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

154. You don't give a shit about the people who need Bush to lose

It's all justa big fucking game to you. Fuck the disabled people like me that are desperate to get a Democratic President back in there to give us a fighting chance at getting some doctor and drug coverage.

Why do you hate the poor and suffering? Why are you willing to play games with their lives?

[SW FL Dem]

138. You may not care, but those of us with kids of draft age do.

As my dad once told me, It's nice to sit on your high horse and judge others, but someday you will be judged. This election isn't about Iraq or "corporations". It is about the future of our country. It is about the environment, education, national security, the economy. A

Iraq isn't going to go away. Voting for Nader or not voting won't bring our troops home. It's your life too. You might get drafted. Women may lose the right to choose. Your vote affects millions of innocent kids. Yes, it feels good to take a stand. But have you ever really considered the consequences???

[teeELkaye]

39. Sensitivity

Criticism as Lifeblood of a party? It is bad enough that we have to battle corrupt, thieving republicans, but to be constantly questioning the evident choice of the party is a waste of energy. I t would be like a fireman standing in front of a fire and wondering out loud if the hose was big enough, is the water wet enough.

Sounds like a Naderite or a Green.

[MadHound]

40. Perhaps it is because subconciously they realize

That we all have been once again saddled with a weak candidate, one who is entirely beholden to corporate interests, and apparently one who won't get us out of Iraq any time soon, in fact will do exactly the opposite, and up the ante by forty thousand troops. Frankly you don't have to look much beyond their slogans, "ABB", "Vote for the Lesser Evil", to see that deep down even they realize that they are aiding and abetting the ongoing corporate and cultural corruption of our government.

Hence, when somebody dares to criticize the nominee apparent, they respond like rabid pit bulls, putting on an exhibition of fury and rage all out of proportion to the critical post.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[blm]

42. Can you detail how Kerry is "entirely beholden to corporate interests"

and explain how you came to that conclusion?

Kerry has a history of never accepting corporate pac money and racked up the best environmental record of any candidate. He has also crafted legislation for public financing of all campaigns and helped craft the Kyoto Protocol for 10 years MUCH to the dismay of corporations.

Kerry will close all corporate loopholes and cancel government contracts with any corporation that uses offshore addresses to avoid paying their share of taxes.

Interesting that some of you are sending the message to our congress that it doesn't MATTER if you have a stellar voting record on enevironmental, judicial and labor issues, you'll still get called a corporatist lackey by those who are too lazy to study the real record.

[Angry Black Man]

46. Here's an excerpt from a Progressive source

In fact, on a myriad of issues Kerry has been part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and so closely resembles President George W. Bush it is a wonder what the Democrats of 2004 are thinking.

Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind," which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc. This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that Kerry worked to protect a $150 million loophole for a major insurance company working on The Big Dig - a $15 billion dollar construction boondoggle in Boston - which has been rife with corruption and political scandal, coming in 500 percent over budget.

For almost two decades, Kerry hasn’t been fighting the special interests he has been enabling the special interests.

And as stated before, Kerry has voted for every free trade deal that has come down the pike and despite being prodded and questioned by the voters back home, he refuses to come out against CAFTA, the extensive of NAFTA to other nations of Latin America. Kerry’s “fighting for us”? Far from it.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0219-11.htm


And there's plenty more just like it about your Golden Boy

[blm]

55. So. That article is wrong and flies in the face of the facts

shown in Kerry's voting record and his policy proposals. That article didn't acknowledge Kyoto or Kerry's 10 year effort there or his refusal to take corporate pac money throughout his career or his support for public financing.

NO corporatist earns highest ratings from environmental groups and strong ratings from labor groups.

Please reconcile these FACTS with the charges you made.That article is bereft of facts and is nowhere near an honest depiction of Kerry's record and policy positions.

[Angry Black Man]

57. ok, here's some truth about Kerry and his "No PAC money"

Kerry's Non-Zero PAC Money
February 29, 2004 01:42 PM
John Kerry makes a habit of bragging about his refusal to accept PAC money. In fact, so does his campaign website:

Facts on John Kerry and Special Interests

JOHN KERRY'S MONEY: NO ONE BUYS JOHN KERRY’S VOTE

PAC FREE: John Kerry has not taken a dime of PAC money during his four Senate elections or during his presidential race. PACs contribute a huge chunk of the money given to politics. Corporate PACs have given $1.2 billion to campaigns and parties since 1990. Not one dime has gone to John Kerry.

Strangely, the Federal Election Commission seems to think differently, showing contributions such as the following for Kerry:

CITIZENS ACTION PAC 06/27/2003 1000.00
CITIZENS WATCH 2000 PAC (FEDERAL) 06/27/2003 1000.00
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE 08/05/2003 5000.00
FLORIDA CRYSTALS INC PAC 06/27/2003 1000.00

(That's a total of $8,000 --- or 80,000 dimes --- for these particular contributions, for those of you counting at home).

Certainly, Kerry appears to have received very little PAC money relative to his overall contributions. And it also seems that some PAC's contributions were returned --- the entry for "O'MELVENY & MYERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE" shows a contribution on 04/24/2003 for $1000, and then an entry for -$1,000 on 06/03/2003.

But "very little" is different than none, and certainly different than "not one dime."

So what am I missing here? Am I being overly pedantic or misreading this data, or has the maintstream press simply a) forgotten to bother to check Kerry's zero-PAC-money claim or b) judged it as "close enough"?

[sangh0]

62. Unions are "Corporate PACs"???

In which universe?

Here's what blm said "Kerry has a history of never accepting corporate pac money"

Did you notice it didn't say "no PAC money"?

[Angry Black Man]

66. huh?

Right out of Kerry's website:

"John Kerry has not taken a dime of PAC money during his four Senate elections or during his presidential race"

[sangh0]

75. huh

None of the donations you listed applied to his Senate elections of his presidential bid.

[DenverDem]

47. "Free" Trade is THE econonomic issue and Kerry has been on the wrong side

every time.

Until we address corporate globalist control of the government and destruction of the economy and environment then nothing else matters.

[MadHound]

54. Can you say NAFTA? How about his promise to CUT corporate taxes,

In some Reaganesque trickle down fantasy that lower corporate taxes will spur job growth:eyes:

And no, he hasn't taken money from corporate PACS, he has just taken the money directly from corporations themselves. Corporations like Citigroup, AOL Time Warner, and ironically, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. This is in addition to monies received from HMOs, drug companies, energy companies, oil and gas companies, the list is quite long. Here, you can read the ugly details for yourself here: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64727-2004Jan30¬Found=true>

And isn't it interesting that while he was taking HMO and Big Pharma money with one hand, he also failed to be present and vote against the Bush Medicare plan, even though he said it was one of the most important issues of our day, and also stated numerous times that he was firmly against it. Nothing like a little campaign contribution to make you quietly go AWOL on an issue you once considered important.

Sorry friend, but if you look closely at Kerry, as with the vast majority of politicians in this day and age, all you will find is another corporate whore, ready to do their master's bidding, just as soon as they pay the cash.

[blm]

65. Wrong. That money was from individuals employed there. No more than you or

I can give.

Your post is bereft of facts. You ASSUME and base all your conclusions on assumptions.

He never took the money you claim. The money I donated could be skewed to be from the media? Check your facts before you spread more false memes.

BTW, that article you posted fails to alert the reader that the figures were COMPILED overa 19 year period and that they were INDIVIDUAL donations. The largest donor being Kerry's BROTHER's coworkers at a law firm. Over a NINETEEN YEAR PERIOD they collectively gave what ONE Bush Pioneer donates in ONE election cycle.

Funny, the WP portrays it as some quid pro quo. Guess Kerry's BROTHER and his coworkers would never have donated to Kerry unless they knew he was going to do their bidding...you know....like promising no more wedgies.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[blm]

70. Show me the corporate pac money. Show me the poor environmental record.

Show me the poor labor record.

Or are you deluding yourself and trying to delude others into rejecting the most liberal, proenvironment Dem nominee of our lifetime?

[zulchzulu]

103. Surely you are kidding yourself

Ewww. The World is bad, bad, bad. Evil is everywhere. Jet planes are raining poison on your burrito.

Sheesh. Don't you get it? Do you really think there is no difference between Bush and Kerry?

That's like saying there is no difference between hash and weed. Ah! Now you get it!

[MadHound]

76. Geez, are you that blind, that naive? Puhleeze, friend, wake up

And smell the coffee. These aren't just any old donors like you are me, these are CEOs, partners, chairmen, people who, for all intents and purposes, ARE the companies that they work for. Trying to simply dismiss them as just another Joe Schmoe working guy is ludicrous at best, and disingenous at worst.

Here, want some more examples? "People who listed their job titles as corporate president, CEO, law or investment firm partner, and consultant figured prominently among Kerry's donors." <http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/11/05/dean_surpasses_kerry_in_raising_funds_in_the_bay_state/>

"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. "
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4859158-111675%2C00.html>

"Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records show. Additionally, two of Kerry's biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world's best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show."
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4375999>

Look, if you wish to continue to delude yourself about Kerry's corporate whoring fine, but don't expect those of us who use logic and the mind that God gave to agree with you. Your ongoing flight into the face of facts simply underscores the point I made in my original post, thanks.

[blm]

85. Break down the facts. kerry's largest donor over 19 YEARS is his brother's

coworkeres at a law firm in Boston.

What was the quid pro quo? What was Enron's quid pro quo? Get real. Get to the bottom line. What did Kerry's brother and coworkers get for their NINETEEN YEARS worth of donations? Would they have NOT donated to Kerry unless he serviced them somehow the way you claim?

[MadHound]

111. We aren't talking about the past nineteen years

The articles I've linked to above are about THIS YEAR'S election campaign, and how Kerry's corporate backers are donating well over $100,000 in bundled donations. Do you understand the concept of bundling? You know, that little trick that allowed Ken Lay and Enron to have so much influence over Bushco. It is the same stunt that Kerry is pulling. It is how the modern political campaign is run.

I'm not talking about nineteen year old history here, I'm talking about NOW. But you would seemingly rather live in the past, where politicians were pure and clean, than deal with the reality of here and now, where the vast majority of politicians, Kerry included, are nothing more than coroprate whores playing good cop/bad cop with the American people while they continue to grind us to dust and bleed us dry. Wake Up!

The biggest part of the problems in our government today is that so many people want to remain willfully blind, so they don't have to bother with politics. This is the attitude that has gotten this country into the nasty place it is now. The only thing that will save us is if people wake the fuck up and demand their government back. But damn, so many would rather worry about American Idol, or fantasize about Britney Speers than deal with the ugly reality of a government out of control, sold down the river to corporate interests.

Recall your history friend, remember the period in our history called the Gilded Age, where the letter behind a politician's name didn't matter, either way the regular Joe was going to get screwed anyway. Well guess what, we are now in the Second Gilded Age(read Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy" for more insight on this phenomenon), and once again, being a Dem or 'Pug doesn't matter, for all are corporate whores.

[blm]

115. The WP article used the nineteen year compilation figures.

Kerry is now in a presidential campaign and is bringing in bigger dollars. I doubt the corporate fatcats are looking forward to Kyoto Protocol.

btw...There ARE businesses that are suffering under Bush.

Corporatists are those lawmakers who ignore environmental standards for corporate profit.

Corporatists are those lawmakers who ignore labor protections for corporate profits.

Corporatists are those lawmakers who lift regulations on companies so they can cheat their employees and rob their pensions.

Corporatists are those lawmakers who allow and justify the evasion of taxes by corporations.

Kerry is NO corporatist.

[MadHound]

121. Gee, and I guess you didn't pay attention to the other three articles

I linked to, and the detailed allegations of quid pro quo that Kerry engaged in. You have no answer for the failure of Senator Kerry to show up for a vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug bill after he received Big Pharma money. All you have is spin and blather, burying your head in the sand and praying that everything will turn out OK.

Wake up and look around! Kerry is simply another corporate whore like most of the rest of the politicians in this country. Denial is what got this country into this mess, and it certainly won't help us out of it. I understand your position, I was a lifelong Dem myself, even voted for Clinton and Gore. But times have changed and the Dems have changed with them(for the worse). While it might be emotionally satisfying to vote for the good ol' Dems, in the long term it is literally societal suicide, giving over control of this country to the good cop face of the corporatistas.

[no name no slogan]

170. His brother's law firm represents big media against gov regulators

One of his brother's biggest clients is Rupert Murdoch and FOX. In fact, Fox has even flown in Kerry staffers to brief them about their "concerns" with the government, and how John could help them out.

Where was John Kerry on the 1996 Telecom Act? This act is the biggest reason why there's so much consolidation in the media industry-- and also a key reason why our very democracy as it exists today is in danger of falling. Free flow of information is threatened by the big media monopolies, which means that real debate is impossible. Hence the reason that so many issues are "off the table" this season, or are relegated to the "fringe", even if they enjoy popular support among most Americans.

Will John Kerry honestly stand up to big media, and tell them the party's over, when his brother's biggest clients are the media monopolists who control the airwaves? BTW, Kerry's brother's law firm is #9 on his list of contributors-- would Kerry really stand up and put the reigns on them? Highly doubtful.

Unfortunately for our democracy, John Kerry really won't be that much of a change from what we have. Big media will still rule the airwaves, and issues not important to them will remain ignored. I doubt John Kerry will take ANY action to curb the growth of these behemouths, much less roll back their control of OUR airwaves.

If Kerry truly were a threat to the powers-that-be, it's doubtful he would have received all the money and backing from big business contributors. The only things that will change in a Kerry administration are the color of the drapes in the West Wing. We'll still have to keep pressure on him to take a stand against big money and corporate control of our government.

[Angry Black Man]

78. ..and more and more and more

From The Hill:

Although Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry often rails on the campaign trail against U.S. companies that relocate jobs abroad, seeking lower tax and wage rates, federal records show that the Massachusetts senator is heavily invested in such companies and has recently received substantial support from some of their top executives.

Campaign finance reports reviewed by The Hill reveal that employees at 25 companies identified by CNN’s Lou Dobbs as “either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers,” have contributed more than $370,000 to Kerry’s presidential campaign.

Citigroup executives have contributed $68,250 to Kerry’s presidential bid. There was a maximum contribution from the company’s chairman and CEO, Charles O. Prince.

• Morgan Stanley executives have contributed $38,000 to the campaign, including a maximum donation by Richard B. Fisher, chairman emeritus.

• AOL Time Warner executives donated $29,750 to Kerry, with maximum contributions from James V. Kimsey, AOL co-founder and chairman emeritus, and Kathryn Bushkin, president of the AOL Time Warner Foundation and a senior vice president of the company. AOL Time Warner ranks as the third largest donor to Kerry’s political career.

• Goldman Sachs executives have contributed $50,300 to the candidate’s presidential campaign, including a maximum contribution from Vice Chairman Robert S. Kaplan. The investment firm is Kerry’s ninth largest all-time donor base.
Likewise, Kerry’s most recent Senate financial disclosure shows that he and his wife are heavily invested in companies that outsource jobs.

Direct investments and trusts controlled by Kerry list assets of $124,026 to $636,000 in such companies. Trusts held by Teresa Heinz Kerry hold at least $8.5 million in outsourcing companies. Seven of those holdings — with AIG, Anheuser-Busch, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Pfizer and Procter & Gamble — were valued at greater than $1 million.

Only Teresa Heinz Kerry’s investments produced income last year. Dividends and capital gains from those holdings or transactions brought in between $1.07 million and $9.47 million.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that Kerry received significant donations and fundraising assistance from executives at companies that have reorganized in offshore tax-havens. While no physical displacements directly result from such a move, it can drastically reduce a company’s tax burden.

Executives and employees at these companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry’s campaign, the paper noted. Kerry has also benefited from the fundraising prowess of two investment executives who facilitate offshore corporate reorganizations. Those individuals have raised more than $400,000 for the presidential campaign, the paper reported.

[mouse7]

87. Then vote for Bush, ABM

You hate Kerry so much, then vote for Bush.

However, please quit acting like you are doing anything but supporting the neo-con agenda.

[blm]

89. Individual money from INDIVIDUALS. That's how the right spins media donors

to democrats, too.

Not ONE of those people who are employed at those firms gave more than I could.

Kerry NEVER accepted CORPORATE donations or accepted the idea of corporate personhood the way many politicians have.

[MadHound]

108. Apparently you are conviently ignoring that little concept

Called bundling. You know, where the influential corporate donor not only donates $2000, but uses his or her position of influence and power to get other members of his corporation to pony up $2000, and so on and so on, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is how Bushco got so much money in the '00 election cycle(remember the Pioneer Club), and apparently Kerry is using the same play book.

And when you have players putting up this kind of cash in such large amounts, you have corporate corruption. A quid pro quo is not spoken of, but there is no need to speak of it, it is understood. Remember Kenny boy Lay? He was one of Bush's Pioneers, and had enormous pull in the Bush administration. The same phenomenon is taking place with Kerry's bundling champs, with the same result, high level corporate corruption.

Your continued, fevored denial of the facts staring you in the face isn't a healthy place to be. You are simply setting yourself up for a huge letdown if Kerry becomes the President. For the man has sold his political soul to his corporate backers, and the legislation he pushes, the stances he takes, will not be in the best interests of you or me, the working stiff, the common man. Rather they will be aimed squarely at the corporations who backed him and who will continue to back him. To deny this reality of a modern political race is to be willfully ignorant of how politics in America work. Sure, you can give Kerry $2000, you might even be able to prod a few friends to also pony up $2000 apiece. But neither you nor I have the reach, the influence to arm twist seventy or more corporate executives into parting with $2000, IN YOUR NAME. We simply don't have the cash or the connections to pull that kind of stunt off. But hey, I understand that Denial is a fine, beautiful river in Egypt. However, it simply isn't the real world.

[teeELkaye]

72. subconscious reality

The only view from a mountain of criticism is missed opportunity.

[zulchzulu]

100. Lemme guess...

You're for that guy with 23 delegates who is in last place in the primaries. Last place. Get it?

We have work to do. But hey, thanks for the laugh.

[MadHound]

114. I'm for any politician on the left who won't take corporate money

In any way, shape or form. Yes I supported Kucinich, and he lost. So I will be switching to the Greens, who also take no corporate cash. This is no longer about Dems or 'Pugs, this is about taking our government back from the corporations and their political whores who have pushed America to the brink. Do you know your history friend? The last time that we had the two party/same corporate master form of government was during a period of time known as the Gilded Age. Didin't matter whether a politician was Dem or 'Pug, their only true concern was that corporate cash. And do you know how the Gilded Age ended? In that fine little debacle known as the Great Depression. We are now in the Second Gilded Age, and by all measures so far, it is much worse than the first one, meaning that when the fall comes, it will be the Great Depression on steroids. My efforts have been and will continue to be acting against corporate corruption of government, whether it be Dem or 'Pug. That is why I do not vote for those who have those corporate ties that bind, it is why I work hard on issues such as publicly financed elections. I may not stop the onrushing crash, but maybe I might lessen the impact.

But hey, thanks for being just another brick in the wall.

[zulchzulu]

118. I doubt the Greens take no corporate cash

I've worked with the Green party in the past and vote locally for Green candidates if they can do the job.

If you can't find how Kerry (who has the strongest environmental record of any Senator) wouldn't be worth the effort to beat Bush even just for that fact alone, then maybe all I can tell you is that you need to really take a look at THIS election and see what could happen if Bush gets his grubby hands on a second term.

Now is not a time for me to work for the Green party. I lost a lot of respect for them when they enabled Nader and helped hand the election to Bush.

I appreciate your answer on some levels. But there is definitely a utopian naivete in the mix too.

[MadHound]

120. Sorry friend, but I'm thinking long term

Not just from election cycle to election cycle. I fallen victim to the fearmongering tactic of "X will bring hell to Earth" far too many times, including the '00 debacle. I won't be falling for it again. Yes, I know that the Greens can only get state and local politicians elected at this point, but it is an important goal to reach the magic five percent mark in a presidential campaign, therefore I will be voting and working towards achieving that goal. And if you would go searching over on the Green party site, you will find that they do not take corporate money.

I also see that you are continuing to fall for the old "its all Nader's fault" scapegoating for the '00 outcome. Don't you think that is a little simplistic there friend? I mean, after all, there were matters like the Votescam scandal, the hundreds of thousands of registered Dems and self described liberals who voted for Bush out of disgust for Gore's offshore drilling stance, the way the Gore campaign handled the recount fiasco, oh and the Supreme Court Five who actually selected Bush over Gore. All of these factors were much more influential in Gore's defeat than the marginal effect that Nader had. But hey, if it lets you sleep at night, who am I to argue with revisionist history?

And I find it humorous that you think I'm falling for utopian thinking by working for the Greens. Well, I guess I'd rather be thought of as utopian than insane. I mean, after all, one definition of insanity is repeating an action over and over(like voting Dem), and expecting a different result each time. Well, after twenty five years of insanity, the idea of a different "utopian" way doesn't sound so bad any way you phrase it.

[zulchzulu]

137. OK, maybe instead of "utopian", I meant "unrealistic"

Bless you for such an innocent view of the World.

But the day the Greens get any reasonable political power in the US is the same day that we all realize that the National Anthem is nationally rejected as a war anthem by Pat Boone and Pat Robertson marries Jerry Falwell in a glitzy Fox News gay wedding in SF with Brit Hume as the Best Man.

It ain't gonna happen.

[MadHound]

156. Oh ye of little faith

Stranger things have happened in politics before. Presidents have been unseated, parties have been thrown onto the dustbin of history, longshots have won, the list is endless.

Besides, even if the Greens don't succeed in becoming THE party, it is entirely reasonable to think they will exert some leftward pressure on the Dems, and that in and of itself is a worthwhile goal. Back in the '30s, the Socialists were scaring the Dems so much that they stole a couple of planks from the Socialist platform. And we're still enjoying the benefits of Social Security and unemployment insurance to this day. Maybe this time around we will wind up with universal health care and publiclly financed elections. Who knows? What I do know is that we cannot continue with the same ol' same ol'. We desperately need change in this country, and that change is only going to come from outside the two big parties, for they are now too corrupt for change to come from within.

[Larkspur]

48. Because Kerry and his buddies used dirty tricks to undermine

an honest candidate -- Howard Dean.

Like Nixon, Kerry won with trickery to smear his primary opponent because he didn't have the charisma and vision to win voters support on his own merits.

[mouse7]

49. Sorry. Dean blew his campaign budget and killed himself

Dean had $50 million and blew it in less than 2 weeks of the primary season. Dean killed Dean.

[clarknyc]

58. Really?

"Dean had $50 million and blew it in less than 2 weeks of the primary season."

I think you're misinformed. Got a link?

[mouse7]

60. Dean raised $50 million and was almost out of money after N.H.

That's the truth.

[clarknyc]

73. Yeah...starting in the spring of 2003.

He didn't blow $50 million in two weeks as you said. That's the truth. That is, of course, unless you have a link?

I don't know why you care enough to continue to spread disinformation about a campaign that is long over. It's done. It's all such old news.

[mouse7]

81. Dean had $50 mill. Dean spent it by the end of N.H primary

You can look at it however you want. Dean made some mighty poor decisions that cost him his a chance at the nomination.

I didn't bring the subject up. Larkspur did in post #48. I was correcting the false info. Yell at Larkspur.

[clarknyc]

102. That's a different statement.

You said, post #49: "Dean had $50 million and blew it in less than 2 weeks of the primary season." That is not a true statement.

It's not a matter of how I want to look at it. It's a matter of me responding, in good faith, to exactly what you said. That's all. And since I'm not yelling at you, I've no idea why you think I should go "yell at Larkspur."

[mouse7]

133. No. It's not.

Dean had $50 million. That $50 million was blown with less than two weeks of the primary season gone.

[blm]

56. Wrong. The Minn. DNC uncovered the RNC dirty trick

to make Dean supporters think Kerry was autodialing Dems and Dean supporters. The calls were traced to GOP operations.

Surely you remember that momentous discovery?

[clarknyc]

59. I don't remember that.

However, I don't doubt it. Do you have a link for that? Thanks...

[blm]

90. It would be in the archives here....

It would be around the week before the Minnesota primary.

[clarknyc]

104. Thanks.

I'll check it out.

[no name no slogan]

171. That was true-- they traced it to a Repub-affiliated company

...that had done auto-dialing-type gigs for the Republicans in the past.

However, I think they actually used Edwards' name to do the autodialing. At least that's whay I seem to recall from February. I'm in MN, but I didn't get a call thankfully. But I'm not sure if they made much difference by then, as Dean had dropped after Wisconsin, and Edwards dropped out within 10 minutes after the start of our caucus process.

[zulchzulu]

94. Give that man a fresh plate of sour grapes and tall glass of Get A Clue

This lying trash about Kerry using "dirty tricks" against Dean is almost as impressive for lack of thought as the rotten-toothed acidhead-burnt hippie gibberish about "Skull and Bones"...

Gimme a freakin' break.

[Larkspur]

163. Torricelli, the nortorious corrupt ex-senator from New Jersy, is one of

Kerry's national fundraising chairpersons and he is the one who helped financially backed the 527 group -- Americans for jobs and healthcare -- which smeared Dean. Torricelli gave $50K from his former senate war chest to this group to runs that smear campaign.

This is the major reason why I won't donate money or time to Kerry's campaign. Kerry is scum because he associates with scum like Torricelli.

[mitchum]

134. Boo-fucking-hoo!

Silly rabbit, charisma is in the eye (or mouth) of the beholder

[Zorra]

53. Anybody have the phone # of a good cat herder?

I'm to the left of Gandhi and Kucinich. But I recognize the fact that Bu$h and the cabal are

FUCKING FASCISTS

Either vote for Kerry and get rid of Bu$h, or live the rest of your lives under fascist totalitarianism if you don't flee the country.
Dennis Kucinich is attempting to unify liberals and progressives behind Kerry with an emphasis on retaining and expanding the core ideologies of the Democratic Party with a vision for the future. I believe that this is a very pragmatic approach. Unify behind Kerry, get rid of Bu$h, fix what is wrong with the Democratic Party after the election.

IMO, it would be wise understand this and follow DK's example.

To Anyone Considering Voting For A Third Party Presidential Candidate In 2004.

http://www.opednews.com/michaels032604_3rd_party.htm

[blm]

117. Thankyou. That is EXACTLY what DK is doing, and doing it with INTEGRITY

.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[info being]

98. What the hell does "rank and file" mean? Who says that?

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

92. Eh...Yuh..he's only RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT against Bush...

I'd give you a welcome to DU, but you seem to be a trend in people coming here with fairly insipid, knuckled-headed views that haven't a clue on how important this election is and are generally too lazy to do some homework on what the issues are.

Put it this way. Either support Kerry and get the heck out of the way. We have some serious fighting to do to win and we don't need mealy-mouthed wimps and nay-sayers in denial that their candidate failed to get the candidacy.

Save the pot party parlor talk for impressing airhead hippie chicks at the beach.

[leyton]

116. Hey, don't call us Kerryites.

We prefer the term 'Kerry supporters.' Get it right.

:evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. Point one: Bullshit flamebait post

Point two: lack of syntax.
Point three: Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

123. Why do the ABKers want to be "victimized?"

Look, everyone's entitled to their opinions. You don't like Kerry, fine. Post it, and I'll tell you why I THINK you are wrong. You come back , and call me a brownshirt, a DLCer, or whatever today's favored term for it, and I'll come back and tell you why I think you are wrong--again.

You're still posting, so you haven't crossed that invisible line yet, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

It's a political forum. Feelings are gonna be hurt.

[Sorry.]

126. I'm not hurt

I don't bruise that easily. It just seems to me that a lot of threads on here are something along the lines of "what's the deal with people who don't like Kerry", followed by a raft of people replying that it's either because they're bitter that their guy lost, or Republicans in disguise or something along those lines. I know the starting post might have started off in a fairly whiney fashion, but it wasn't intented that way. I genuinely think that some of the reactions on here pitch the Kerry criticism as being necessarilly destructive and intended to be so. Neither I which I believe to be true.

[Forkboy]

130. lol...did any of the answers suprise you?

:)

[AmyStrange]

131. "real" Kerry supporters aren't sensitive...

they honestly WANT Kerry to win and will sometimes go out of their way to help folks understand where Kerry is coming from.

It's the "pretend" Kerry supporters whom are really causing almost all the problems here. They don't care one way or the other whether Kerry wins in November or not. You can tell whom they are by the simple fact that they almost never offer constructive post (or even start constructive threads) here in the DU. All they like to do is be mean and insult and divide the party and they've discovered that they can get away with it here by "pretending" to be a Kerry supporter.

Most of them don't know what they are talking about as far as what is allowed here or what this DU is all about. How do I know this? Because - if you think about it - if they were right, there would be no (what they consider) Kerry bashing threads here. The reason they are still posted here and the reason those thread starters are still here is because the moderators and administrators consider them constructive criticism - which you rightly pointed out.

If you don't believe me go to the "ask the adminstrators" forum and ask them yourself. Don't listen to the "pretend" Kerry supporters here in the DU that "pretend" to know all the answers. They don't.

By the way,

!!!! WELCOME TO THE DU !!!!

and check out the best "unofficial" DU Slang Dictionary in the Universe:

http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/


10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner (one of the founding admins here in the DU):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html









sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[Generator]

166. Thanks for the DU links it was worth reading for that

Also, you can get a wee bit sensitive when you feel you have a fanatical messianic brain challenged man for a "President" that you feel was unfairly "selected" to be the president of the United States. And then on his watch, allows the worst attack on our shores to happen, takes no responsibility for it, and then uses this tragedy as his REASON for being re-elected, uses it to deceive ordinary Americans(even me for a a few months) into believing a war was necessary to protect us from the possible WMD becoming a "mushroom cloud" and finding out all of that was false, and my ignorance, good will, fear, and grief were used to manipulate me into supporting a war that will end up being the worst mistake this country has made since Vietnam.

Sensitive? As my father who didn't finish ninth grade would say, either shit or get off the pot. This is your choice, Bush whom speaks to GOD and decieves and lies, and is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a hundred years, or a imperfect, bright, sensitive, senator named Kerry. GET IT? (Actually I think you're a Republican, but hey it worth a shot...SORRY)

[AmyStrange]

169. You'd lose that bet...

I'm not Republican. There are a lot of things I don't understand about Kerry's positions and there is no way I'm going to lie just to get him elected. I'll vote for him, but I won't lie.

I try to find out some answers to my questions here, but all I get is "You're a Republican" or "You're part of the Bush Cabal" or some such nonsense, which is part of the problem of what I was talking about.

The DU should be the best place to get the answers to these questions, but it seems all folks want to do here is tell me (and other folks with questions), "shut up, smile, vote for Kerry, and while you're doing that sheeple thing drink some of this koolaid."

Sad really,

d

[Generator]

172. No! I meant I thought SORRY (post starter)could be a Rep not you Amy!

I was just responding to your DU list.

Don't need to lie, I agree. Kerry was not my first choice, either. In fact a year ago, I didn't like him much, but I've been watching him and liking him more and more. A year ago I wouldn't even entertain the notion that 9/11 could have been prevented, much less that maybe they LIHOP. People can change with the evidence they are presented. If things come out about Kerry I would criticize him too, but as Arrianna Huffingtion said, you don't re-decorate when your house is on fire.

As I said about Clinton(whom I have some real issues with and don't worship as some here do) compared to Bush he's the greatest man on earth.

Don't shut up, but if I feel strongly I'm going to defend my man. Right now I'm looking at Kerry as our saviour(oh so starry-eyed) but sometimes faith is all that gets you through another day. I think the Dems need this passion even if it comes from fools like me.

By the way, it was Dean that inspired me, and Dean that made me see that unity and telling the truth and using your passion are the only way to take back our country.

[AmyStrange]

173. I appreciate that....

not often someone apologizes and I really really appreciate it when someone does. I don't like Kerry because of his IWR vote, but I do like some of the things he stands for and I will vote for him and Dean was my guy from the beginning and you are right about faith sometimes being the only thing that gets you through the day and anyone who is as honest as you is no fool...


"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream,

d

[InflateableLove]

132. Because he is not Bush

Hate trumps logic in the mind of some. I have found it's better not to argue with bands of those singing a hateful song than it is to sing out of tune and be sneered at by the band.

[Piperay]

155. No...

it is because though they think they are being careful they obviously come here with an agenda. I'm sure that you already know that though, don't you... :eyes:

[TLM]

139. Because they know Kerry is...

just another uninspiring DC insider corporate whore who takes whatever position is most likely to help his career. Be it supporting bush in Iraq, voting for the patriot act, voting for no child left behind or attacking Howard Dean for saying we should insist on UN support before going to Iraq.

They know all he's got going for him is that he is not Bush. He's Bush's frat brother... another rich white corporate sell out talking head politician that is about as exciting as a cold bag of gruel.


And they worry that more and more people are simply not going to be inspired by him because of these facts... and since changing Kerry is impossible... they'll instead just attack anybody who doesn't sing the party anthum.

Just like the republicans do.

[wyldwolf]

165. Kinda like Howard Dean minus the DC insider thing

just another uninspiring politician corporate whore who takes whatever position is most likely to help his career.

[samsingh]

160. because so much is at stake if bush steals the election again.

[cindyw]

168. We are not sensitive, it's just that there are so many chicken littles

running around on this board.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Where can we get another candidate fast? Oh whoa are we? Help us, help us!!

Oh what is that you say, Kerry is ahead now? Oh, I knew he kicked ass all along!"