Why do people post anti-Kerry spin and innuendo here?

[MoonRiver]

Seems like they're Karl Rove plants, but what do I know. :shrug:

They post stuff that seems innocently inquisitive, but, imo, is designed to build doubt and dissention, and, most importantly, only benefits AWOL. I am highly suspicious of these folks. If they are Nader people, let them so state. The fact is that they hardly ever openly mention support for Nader. They just subtly or directly bash Kerry. I really believe there is a hidden agenda, and it is not to the benefit of Democrats or democracy.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Cuz they're just soooo liberal.

It's not about their politics, it's about them. If it was about their politics, they'd be explaining why they feel this or that is important, not simply that they believe it and Kerry apparently doesn't to them.

I'm starting to think we should do some mass-ignores, like form an ignore-bloc.

[MoonRiver]

2. Mass ignore sounds good to me.

If enough of us do it they'll go elsewhere, hopefully.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Only snag is...

...they'll get to hit newbies more unmitigated then. So I'm a little bit ambivalent.

[usregimechange]

8. I am even silent about that. I agree, but not much of it in here...nt

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Grover Norquist Was Right About Liberals

They can't get their shit together. Until 2004, that is. With the exception of a small, but prolific group of naysayers, I'd say we are all fairly committed to staying focused on the Big Picture.

[monroncrief]

27. Ummmmm....huh?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

81. Sounded good.

But didn't hit the landing.

[aldian159]

5. it is quite annoying

to say the very least. The GOP plants sometimes make this site unbearable. I better stop complaining now or some goon from free repuke will see this as a sign of weakness.

[Andromeda]

6. Agree.

The anti-Kerry posters have their own agenda. They get a perverse satisfaction from getting everybody pissed off. Their payoff is the negative reaction they get from the pro-Kerry voters because it gives them feeling of power to get others so riled up.

IMHO, they really aren't very nice people. They are selfish, narrow and vengeful. They don't care who gets hurt by their actions and these are not the kind of people who we should be wasting our time with.

Just ignore them and they will go away eventually.

[MoonRiver]

42. I've had those same feelings.

It is such a sad thing for this country that some people put petty politics and their egos above the common good. :cry:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. They can't openly support Nader

that would get them banned.

[In Sha Allah]

110. Hey - I'm new...

And I openly support Nader. Will that really get me banned?

[GalleryGod]

9. The "PROCTOLOGIST's DREAM Date" Factor

Kerry's going to pull it off...they can't bear it..so they literally "shit on our site":hurts:

[jpgray]

10. The only criticism of Kerry I find annoying

Is that which has been posted and responded to many times before, especially if the person reposting it is one who has posted at length on the subject several times before. Even then, I see nothing wrong with doing that if someone chooses to, but their motive in that case seems to be less about criticizing Kerry than about yelling negative things until someone stops by to argue.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. some people don't like Kerry but intend to keep giving him a chance.....

to say or do anything to change their minds.
IMO, he was our worst choice except Lieberman. He won the primaries because the republicans and the media wanted him to.
Don't like that I have an opinion, then you don't belong in my democratic party. Only a moron would accuse me of supporting Nader.

[sangh0]

14. I like the way

you validate your own opinion that some Dems are not really Dems, while condemning the opinions of others who, like you, think some ideas make them "not a Dem". And I'm sure that "who's oxen is being gored" has nothing to do with it.

[Forkboy]

12. it makes a good counter to the McCain would be a good VP crap

kinda balances us out...like Fox News.

[Rebellious Republican]

13. Yep and I don't think its the Deaniacs anymore, not after reading

about the Kerry/Dean thread, party unity is taking hold! The candidates understand this. I finally gave up on another thread the other night, some posters do seem to veil their negative posts as innocent questions. When read they are obviously offering up flame bait,and when you try to answer or ask questions, they seem to use GOP tactics like like deflect and divert as replies. When backed into a corner they just start sputtering meaningless come backs.

[sangh0]

15. Support for Dean was cover for some

to hide their Republicanism. It allowed them to appear to be Dems while giving them cover to criticize Dems from the left. Some are now using DK and Nader for that purpose.

[nomaco-10]

17. You can't possibly believe that, could you?....

Especially coming from somebody that was camped out here all during the primaries, you must have disregarded any post or poster that had heartfelt and passionate ideals about what it means to be a democrat. Furthermore, if I recall, Kerry is the one that has been consistently accused of being "bush lite" not Dean or Kucinich.

You gotta be kidding me, Dean supporters "hiding their republicanism" I'd be insulted if it weren't so ludicrously ignorant.

[sangh0]

30. You can't possibly not know the meaning of the word "some", could you?

I said "some" Dean, DK, and Nader supporters. You do understand what "some" means, don't you?

[sadiesworld]

43. At it again, are we?

[HFishbine]

66. And you know this how?

Smells like ass smoke to me.

[sangh0]

67. I know this because

of all the Freepers posing as supporters of Nader/Dean/DK I've gotten banned

[Forkboy]

70. You've gotten people banned?

[Rebellious Republican]

32. Actually the way I read it, I believe that sanghO was trying to say

that there were freepers posting as Kuchinck supporters and Deaniacs. As such, they are trying to divide the party from the inside. The GOP would use these tactics and try to disguise themselves. Which brings us back to the point of this thread.
:shrug:

[bitchkitty]

50. I'm quite sure there are

Republicans who posed as Clark supporters, or Braun supporters, or Kerry supporters. It's not uncommon, especially on bulletin boards.

The singling out of Dean supporters on DU is not uncommon either.

[sangh0]

52. Comprehending English

I really don't understand how my comments, which referred to some Dean, DK, and Nader supporters, could be interpreted as "The singling out of Dean supporters on DU"

[bitchkitty]

93. Comprehending English

I don't know where my post said that YOU were singling out Dean supporters.

[sangh0]

95. Comprehending English

I don't know where my post said that YOU were singling out Dean supporters.

Your post didn't say it. Your post defended a poster who did say it. It's possible that was not your intention, but I assumed you're smart enough to know what you're responding to.

[Cheswick2.0]

101. Well there are actual republicans who support Dean

but most of the posers here were pretending to support Clark and Kerry.

[Rebellious Republican]

64. The pseudonym says it all!

Thats not what the discussion was about, Jeeesh! :eyes:

[kiahzero]

34. Reading comprehension is a good thing to have

He suggested that Republicans were posing as Dean supporters. Hence, it wouldn't matter what Dean or his genuine supporters really believed, because the individuals in question were fakes.

[9119495]

16. Because they're morons

One day I logged in after a bit of an absence and saw eight anti-Kerry threads--From different posters--on the GD 2004 page. Was it a coordinated attack? Get it together people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Because the Dems have abandoned the left for a DLC candidate.

Again. One that is avoiding talking about the war in Iraq that he supported with his cowardly vote, and continues to support.

John Kerry is a nice, "safe", moderate, candidate that toes the DLC "centrist" line in order to further his ambitions.

Having said that. For all you that see "plants" I've been a registered and voting Democrat since 1965. I'll be voting for my anti-war Senator and congressman in '04 but not for Kerry just like I didn't vote for Hubert Humphrey in '68.

As I see it, a vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for more war. If you stomach voting for the war in Iraq, and the so called "War on Terror", with the justification that Kerry won't be "as bad" as Bush, then have at it.

If Kerry want's my vote then he's going to have to grow some backbone and stand up to BushCorp instead of edging towards them.

[Sparkly]

19. Been to Kerry's website yet?

He hasn't avoided talking about Iraq.

He's not "safe" -- he is being painted as an extreme Massachussetts Radical Liberal, More Liberal than Ted Kennedy That's How Liberal.

It's not about "backbone," it's about being smart. This "get a spine" stuff sounds to me like the RNC saying the Chimp is "strong" and "stands up to terrorists" -- it's not about emotional rants and manly talk about "balls," it's about being smart and effective.

I'm curious: what do you hope to accomplish by hanging around bashing Kerry? Do you think it'll change Kerry? Do you want to make more people dislike him? Does it just make you feel better somehow?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. In answer.

"I'm curious: what do you hope to accomplish by hanging around bashing Kerry? Do you think it'll change Kerry? Do you want to make more people dislike him? Does it just make you feel better somehow?"

I'm hoping that people here will see Kerry for what he is. Another empty suit backed by the DLC. I'm "bashing" Kerry because of his failing to confront Bush and the war in Iraq.

You say that it's not about "balls" and rants. It's about being smart and effective.

OK. Bush's strongpoint for the voters is that he comes off as "decisive", "strong", and all that tough Texan bullshit. So, what do we offer? Someone who who voted for the war but now says that he doesn't like the way the slaughter is being handled. Someone who calls for more troops, and to give Bush "more space". Someone who calls for NATO, with full knowledge that NATO won't touch it. Someone who calls for the UN to intervene but doesn't offer to give up political and military control to the UN. Do you really think that this is "smart and effective"? To merely offer more of the same but not quite as bad?

Does it make me feel better to "bash" Kerry? Before his IWR vote he was my candidate. No, it doesn't make me "feel better". I'm calling for his supporters to get off their duffs, quit going along to get along, and hold his feet to the fire. Make him offer an alternative to BushCorp, not merely the "not as bad" tiptoeing he's doing.

I'm an anti-war socialist who has been a registered Democrat since 1965. Perhaps you can explain to me why I should vote for a pro-war "liberal" (an oxymoron to my way of thinking).

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

22. If you actually think Kerry won't handle Iraq better than Bush

And the war is the only issue to consider, then go ahead and vote for Bush.

Never mind the environment, reproductive rights, etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Do what?

What could possibly lead you to believe that I would vote for Bush?

The war is the primary issue this election. Why do you want to let Kerry off the hook for his war stance?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

25. Because the war already started.

The important thing is how to end it. I believe Kerry would handle it better than Bush. I also believe that Kerry is less likely to start a new war (Syria...) than Bush.

There are two people who have a chance of being elected president in November. My feeling is that Kerry will be a far better president than Bush. Not even close.

But you may disagree - you can support either candidate, no one is stopping you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. You're leaving out a bit.

At this point, I won't be voting for the birdbrain or Kerry. I will probably vote for whoever gets the Green nomination.

That Kerry would be better than the dummy is a given. My potted plant would be an improvement. But, I'm not going to give him a pass because he's "not as bad" as Bush.

While Kerry dithers and plays it safe by not attacking Bush and his goons on the war, people are dying and will continue to die until we get the hell out of there.

40 more innocent Iraqis were killed today while our politicians try to figure out how to look "patriotic" and refuse to commit themselves.

I hope that Kerry wins. But, if he wants my vote he's going to have to come up with a realistic way to end our criminal occupation of Iraq.

[Sparkly]

40. What are you accomplishing?

You say you want people to "see Kerry for what he is," or for what you believe he is, but you seem unfamiliar with Kerry's record as well as his proposals.

It's beyond me how anyone could say Kerry isn't confronting Bush, when daily headlines show him attacking Bush on everything from Iraq to healthcare to education to energy -- and that's just in the past two weeks.

I suggest you read Kerry's recent speech on Iraq, in which he discussed things you mention such as NATO, the UN, and giving political control to an international entity. It is not at all the same as Bush's continued flying by the seat of his pants.

You say you believe bashing Kerry will get others to "hold his feet to the fire" on Iraq. It seems you believe that there are two choices: one is pull out all troops immediately, and the other is "Bush-lite" no matter what the plan.

Most voters do not believe we should pull all troops out immediately so that is a losing campaign position. But more than that, please consider the consequences of pulling out without first stabilizing Iraq: a failed state, with outsiders moving in, new terrorist organizations taking root there, and huge risk for Iraq to become another Afghanistan or Iran under theocratic rule. That's not good for the most vulnerable citizens of Iraq, it may well end up threatening other countries in the area and certainly destabilizing their governments, and in the long run, the result is MORE deaths, more countries involved, more war -- in short, an even bigger mess.

We ALL want to get out. The Iraqi people want us out. Everybody wants us out. But we have to get out in a way that cuts everybody's losses and does the least further damage possible.

Crabbing about Kerry in the hopes of getting others to crab about Kerry is not productive at all, in any way, for any purpose, in my opinion.

[hippiegranny]

100. "I'm hoping that people here will see Kerry for what he is. "

to what end? i mean, really, what will that accomplish other than giving the pinheaded murderer four more years? he's going to be the nominee whether you can make the people at du "see Kerry for what he is" or not. meanwhile, he we sit, once again, fighting each other instead of the real public enemy #1. i don't see this attitude as part of any solution. which, was the whole reason behind the thread author's question, was it not?

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. What about all the people out there....

...who don't have computers? How is he getting the message across to them?

[Sparkly]

41. There are newspapers,

speeches, TV interviews, ads... But no smoke signals or cups attached with strings, as far as I know :)

[MoonRiver]

78. No offense to you, bandera, but we really know NOTHING

about posters here except what they decide to tell us. I hope you're not asking me to believe that every single anti-Kerry DU poster is a pure as the driven snow liberal.

[TheDonkey]

20. FReaks and bitter liberals who know nothing about politics

and reality

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Bitter liberals?

Damned right. I am a bitter liberal. I'm bitter that we have a candidate who pussyfoots around the issues and wants to send more troops to kill people in Iraq and give Bush "more space".

That's reality.

[TheDonkey]

60. You must not be following John Kerry or not listening to him

[Larkspur]

26. I bash Kerry and still plan on voting for him in November

I'm not a Repuke plant, and I'm not a fan of Nader.

I'm a member of my town's Democratic Town Committee and just completed my first stint as a delegate from my town to the state Dem convention. I've also been a poster on this board since near when it was founded in 2000. In case you didn't see it, the star next to my name indicates that I'm a paying member of this board. Rove plants wouldn't pay money to a Dem board.

One does not have to like Kerry to vote for him. As my signature line says, "Politics is not the art of the possible. It is more often a choice between a disaster (Bush) and the unpalatable (Kerry). Only the Kerry cultists believe Democrats have to give Kerry our whole mind, body, soul, and cash. I refuse to be a sheep following the Kerry herd.

If you think I'm bad with Kerry, just wait until Lieberman's re-election campaign starts in 2006. I'll be gearing up for that after November.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Some are frustrated becasue Democratic voters picked Kerry

rather than their favorite. They need to ask themselves wheather or not they want to risk another fours of Bush.

[Pastiche423]

31. What utter hogwash

"Democratic voters" did not pick Kerry. Iowans picked kerry because the media and TPTB told them he was "electable".

It is the way our system works and will continue to work until We, the People quit buying what TPTB have been selling our mostly politically unconcerned populace.

The elitest Kerry is controlable. He is the status quo. TPTB won't have to worry a wit that he might upset their tidy, wealthy world.

He stands for nothing. He is too afraid to stand for anything, less it upset his lifelong ambition to be the next "JFK" (spit, spit, spit).

I will never understand why some people are proud that Kerry may win, ONLY because he is not whistle ass and not because he is someone to be proud of by what he has to offer.

If wanting to be proud of my party and who will represent my party is Kerry bashing, then so be it.

[sangh0]

33. So all those Dean supporters voted for Kerry

because the media told them to do so?

[dryan]

36. My 2 cents

Its great that a lot of newer voters got involved with the Presidential campaign this year. Unfortunately, a lot of them don't understand that the first rule of elective politics is that someone looses and someone wins on election day and sometimes its not your candidate---boy did I learn that lesson a long time ago. The second rule is don't believe your own press clippings.

[GalleryGod]

45. Well Put. Of course this thread is littered with some many "ignored"

posts..that I believe it was the "Usual Suspects"

[Exgeneral]

37. no, the media influeneced the polls

no one "voted" in the Iowa caucuses. By the time we got to an actual "voting" state, the damage was done.

Your version of the facts will not change though when the soundbite sounds so great.

[sangh0]

38. No one voted?

So then how did the media influence their votes, which they didn't have?

Your version of the facts will not change though when the soundbite sounds so great.

My version? I'm just asking questions of those wise enough to understand how the media influences people to vote when they don't vote in Iowa caucuses.

[Capn Sunshine]

79. I hope you got your answers

People smarter than one seem to confound some posters into mental pong games

I bet they LOVED Atari don't you think?
what do you mean <> meaning what

[sangh0]

96. I don't know

I may have been given the answer, but the only thing I know for sure is that if I was given an answer, I didn't recognize it as such

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. So no election results should be considered valid becasue the media

influences polls. Bill Clinton elected twice? Not the will of the people, it was just the voters doing what the media wanted them to do!

[mitchum]

39. Hey, weren't you going to leave the Democratic Party as of yesterday?

Does that mean you will be leaving all things which use "Democratic" as an adjective?

Democratic voters in MANY states have picked Kerry as our presumptive nominee. That is the reality of the situation (no matter how much you try to deny)

BTW: I'm a longtime Kerry supporter, but I actually voted for Dennis K in my state's primary. How about that?

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Yet Clark won in Oklahoma

Were OK Democratic voters not as informed about Kerrys 'electability?' Are 'TPTB' not as powerful in the Sooner state?

[MoonRiver]

94. Please specify you are speaking for yourself when you make statements

such as this: " I will never understand why some people are proud that Kerry may win, ONLY because he is not whistle ass and not because he is someone to be proud of by what he has to offer."

That's not MY opinion. I am proud that Kerry is the nominee and I will be doubly proud when he wins.

[Dr Fate]

44. Because winning is "too aggressive"...

If you dont win, then you donty have to do anything- you can just keep on bitching.

[MoonRiver]

103. Lol!

So have we become a party of whining masochists? Like you said its a lot easier than working.
:spank:

[LWolf]

46. :shrug:

Why do people spin dissent with Kerry's statements or positions into bashing here?

Why do people post seemingly innocent questions or observations that insinuate it is somehow foolish, fringe, selfish, or disruptive to engage in the democratic process?

Why do some democrats feel they can only win if they ape fundie tactics that allow no discussion or dissent?

Why do some democrats build doubt, dissension, and suspicion within the democratic party by bashing the non-stepford members of their own party?

Why do people spin the blatant falsehood that expressing disagreement with Kerry is support for Nader or Bush?

And finally, how does innuendo about your fellow democrats or your fellow DUers benefit Democrats or democracy?

[union_maid]

48. Because this is out in the world

The RW looks here for support for their positions. They're already out there, encouraging this. They know they don't have a lot to crow about with their boy, so they're concentrating on depressing the vote for Kerry or encouraging Nader converts. Anti-Kerry posts are just more fodder for them. Anti-Kerry posts on a well known board like this one help Bush and there's no doubt in the world about that.

[LWolf]

49. Well, there's at least one.

Me. I doubt that rw lurkers sneaking in to listen to honest conversations are going to get Bush reselected.

I actually hear many complaints about Kerry out in the world from real democrats. I live in a rw stronghold, and the local dems are pretty conservative. Yet they have the same concerns that I read here. But here, people with concerns about Kerry are labeled "fringe," "nutty," "moles," "operatives," and a host of other unflattering epithets.

I say "concerns" with Kerry because, whether or not DU's diehard Kerry fans want to accept it or not, many people who discuss disagreement with his positions are not out to derail the campaign. They are honest, real concerns, and those concerns are out in the world. The dismay is that Kerry, or his campaign, or his supporters, would "ignore" the concerns of the base.

I realize that there are some Kerry-baiters who would be bitching if he walked on water. For whatever reason. But lumping all dissent in with that group is just wrong. And trying to use that group to quell honest dissent, and therefore the democratic process, is more wrong. I don't care if I'm on my computer, at work, in the grocery store, at the park...where ever I am, civil discussion and debate, including dissent with popular opinion or conventional wisdom, is a sign of democratic health, not a fatal disease.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[HFishbine]

69. The way you provide evidence

of some Dean supporters really being freepers?

[sangh0]

71. Yes. Exactly

.

[HFishbine]

72. No doubt.

Point made.

[LWolf]

89. And a good evening to you, to sang0.

[Sparkly]

54. You're free to piss in your beer, too, but why do it?

Nobody's squelching "dissent," although that's always brought up as the counter-argument. Should I whine that you're trying to stop me from saying I disagree with Kerry-bashers? This is about what's being said, not the right to say it (although some posts border on infraction of DU rules regarding the election).

What I'm saying is consider the purpose and the outcome of criticism. I think it's time to be productive, and suggest people think about whether their griping can be anything but unproductive in outcome, or even counterproductive. There's criticism that's constructive, and there's criticism that is not. Some of it reads like campaigning for an opposing candidate.

Here are a few examples of unproductive griping I've seen (in general, not from you in particular):

- Bemoaning things that can not be changed. Kerry's IWR vote is in the past; it can not be changed. Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate is a done deal now; it can not be changed. Kerry is who he is, in background, manner, speech, and style, and can not be changed (radical makeovers yield phonies). What good does it do to crab about such things?

- Wailing that Kerry's position differs from yours on some issue or issues. Debating the issue itself, joining grassroots organizations whose purpose is to advance the cause, or lobbying for it are all productive. Griping here as though it were even possible for one candidate to be 100% in agreement with every voter is just not productive. If everybody "held his feet to the fire" expecting him to agree with "Me" alone, he wouldn't be able to walk.

- Whining that Kerry is "ignoring" you. It is not the candidate's job to fulfill our emotional needs for attention; right now, it is his job to win the election. There are more voters up for grabs in the center, which is why *any* candidate who expects to win will seek to appeal to that center after the primaries, each and every time. That's a fact. If that makes you take your toys and go home, that's your choice. If the purpose of posting it is to persuade others to go with you, you have the right -- but know that it benefits Bush.

- Spreading disinformation about Kerry. There's no excuse not to know his positions or his record. The internet makes his proposals, speeches, interviews, etc. readily available, yet you'd think from reading some DU posts that Ralph Nader invented issues Democrats like Kerry have fought for for decades, or that Kerry is a "Bush Lite DLC Empty Suit." Kerry is one of the most liberal Senators in Congress, and there has never been a wider difference in presidential candidates in my lifetime. Any discussion should at least be based on the truth.

You can say what you'd like, you can vote as you'd like, you can cut off your nose to spite your face, if you'd like. But I question the wisdom of spreading dissatisfaction and disaffection with the Democratic candidate on a Democratic forum. What does it accomplish?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

90. I don't. I like my beer cold and clean.

:toast:

Nobody's squelching "dissent," although that's always brought up as the counter-argument. Should I whine that you're trying to stop me from saying I disagree with Kerry-bashers? This is about what's being said, not the right to say it (although some posts border on infraction of DU rules regarding the election).

No. I think you should say you disagree with whatever you disagree with, so I wouldn't try to stop you. DU rules regarding the election kick in after the primary, if I understand correctly:

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. 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. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

I'm rebutting the idea that anyone who disagrees with Kerry on any issue is a "basher." I disagree with him on several key issues, and am disappointed in the positions he has taken. That doesn't mean I'm not supporting his candidacy, or recognize the positive things he brings to the table. The point of my post is to point out that lumping all dissent as "bashing" is inaccurate.

What I'm saying is consider the purpose and the outcome of criticism. I think it's time to be productive, and suggest people think about whether their griping can be anything but unproductive in outcome, or even counterproductive. There's criticism that's constructive, and there's criticism that is not. Some of it reads like campaigning for an opposing candidate.

I'll meet you halfway. I'll consider the outcome of criticism you are worried about, if you'll consider the goal of some of us expressing dissent. You're afraid our disagreement will become repub talking points that will swing votes to *, if I understand you. I'm afraid that if Kerry doesn't know how we feel and what we want now, we've given him blanket approval for a platform that needs work when we give him our vote. I want to see the issues brought up and addressed at the convention. Not after the convention. I think the way to do that is for Kerry to hear, not just a few lone voices, but many voices asking him to take a closer look at some issues. That's why I've written him respectful letters. That's why I say what I think. (That, and because I don't like twisting truth. I don't like "spin.") I try to say it in a way that is true about my disagreement and respectful at the same time. I agree that criticism can be constructive or destructive, and I'm not out to be destructive. If I disagree in a way you think crosses the line, give me a constructive comeback, and I'll be glad to meet you halfway. We're on the same team.

[liberalron]

51. Do you folks happen to realize

that you sound just like the anti-Bush Bashers. You do not own the Democratic Party; you do not own this sight; you do not own thoughts and opinions. You do not own "The Truth".
Is Kerry so weak, that he cannot be questioned (I didn't say "don't vote for him).

[MoonRiver]

56. Whatever!

I DO have the right to ask pertinent questions and express my opinions! Or is that not allowed if one is pro-Kerry?

[liberalron]

58. So, the question is

does that only apply to pro-Kerry people? Which, by your definition, would eleminate anyone who doesn't agree with him (and you folks) on every single issue.
Just like the Freepers that you complain about (and I assure you, I am not one), you insist on ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you or "your guy", you tell them what they are thinking, saying, feeling, believing, doing, what are their motivations, perspective and priorities.
I am in awe of you omniscience.
Blast away.

[Sparkly]

59. Could you provide examples

of that "ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you or "your guy", you tell them what they are thinking, saying, feeling, believing, doing, what are their motivations, perspective and priorities." I admit my perspective may be skewed (I'm a Democrat who wants to see Kerry defeat Bush) but it seems to me the hostility is high on the anti-Kerry side.

As I've said, you're free to post whatever you like (within message board rules of course), but I'm still baffled as to what anti-Kerry posters think they're accomplishing here.

[liberalron]

61. Ah, but anything that is not in "lock-step",

is considered to be anti-Kerry here.

[Sparkly]

62. Seems to me anything supporting Kerry is called "lock-step"

or "sycophantic" or "groveling" or "mindless" or "programmed" or any number of other things I've seen posted. Maybe we just have different perspectives.

I'm just amazed at the hostility toward support for Kerry, from some. It almost seems like it's unfashionably establishment for Democrats to support the Democratic nominee on a Democratic forum.

[sangh0]

68. That's only half the story, Sparkly

Anything opposed by Kerry is "grass-roots" and "leadership"

[MoonRiver]

82. Let's just face the facts, OK?

Many anti-Kerry posters DO NOT want him elected. I leave the rest to your imagination.

[Sparkly]

84. On the GD board as I post this,

there are four anti-Kerry posts in the top seven. FOUR. I'm a Democrat supporting the Democratic nominee on Democratic Underground, and I feel like an estranged minority!!

[MoonRiver]

86. Exactly!

Something is VERY wrong with this picture.

[MoonRiver]

77. I don't think my subject line mentioned names.

I AM suspicious of people who simply post anti-Kerry stuff. If one thinks Kerry is ALL BAD then I wonder why he/she would even want to be in such hostile territory. Of course people can post whatever the DU adms allow, but I reserve the privilege of responding.

[cyclezealot]

55. Unless,they want to demorailize us, Freepers dont'wast time here.

Many have honest differences with Kerry..I do not vent them to outsiders and pose a united front on the surface..But within Democratic ranks, I resent Kerry taking the major element of the Democratic party for granted. Plus, his positions are a disappointment...War, Trade,health care. His positions won't work.
We just expect more...He wants our money and time, he must satisfy our policy differences..They are too significant.

[Larkspur]

63. I think posts like this show how thinned skinned Kerry supporters are

Kerry Kultists are the types who bashed other's candidates and now they are getting a good dose of their bitter medicine back in their faces.

[sangh0]

65. And here's the most honest post in this thread

IOW "We bash because we've been bashed"

[Larkspur]

106. sangh0, you took me off of you Ignore list?

Got bored with the pro-Kerry chants and needed a taste of your own medicine, I see.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

75. Who gives a shit about the other candidates?

Kerry is our nominee. The other candidates don't mean a thing - it is Kerry vs. Bush.

Please list the specifics on how Kerry is worse than Bush.

[MoonRiver]

83. Kerry "Kultists" eh?

I was a Clark supporter before Kerry WON enough VOTES to guarantee his nomination. I am hardly a Kerry Kultist. :eyes:

[Sparkly]

85. Could that phrase please be retired here, asap?

"Kerry Kultists" -- puleeze!! Kinda like "Klinton" spelled by Freepers?? Let's at least be grown-ups here.

[MoonRiver]

88. Let's hope.

[Desertrose]

73. Maybe because there are many who do not feel Kerry is our best option.....

and we are all not lockstep behind him.

If you are all looking to Kerry to save us and turn this bush* gov't around, you are gonna be mighty disappointed.

Dems (yes-I am a dem) are so busy trying to play catchup that we have failed to stand up for ourselves and definte who WE are. Didn't we learn anything from 2000?


I'm not a Nader person ...I am however, able to see the flaws in Kerry & the campaign. Will I vote for him...more than likely but am not real thrilled that this is our only option....and damn disappointed to boot.

Yes, I am a Kucinich supporter.....he is still the best choice if you want change....but....:shrug:

Peace
DR

[sangh0]

74. That makes no sense

You are not "lockstep behind him" so you think it's OK to post "innuendo and spin"???

I would have thought that not being in lockstep behind him would lead you to post reasonable criticisms, and not spin and innuendo

[Desertrose]

76. I've never posted "innuendo or spin"....

and feel it serves no real purpose, but some folks here can be rather thin skinned and see real criticisms as slams and insults when tht is not really what they are.....

Some see him as the dem savior and well.....just being realistic.

Sorry if it makes no sense to you....

Peace
DR

[sangh0]

80. I never said you posted innuendo or spin

but you did defend others who post it.

And while there are some who will label ANY criticism of Kerry as innuendo and spin, it is inarguable that some of the criticism IS innuendo and spin. A good example of this would be the Drudge inspired rumor that Kerry had an affair with an intern. Many DUer's jumped on that one.

How do you justify that?

[Sparkly]

87. Criticism is EASY

Do you think you are the only person who finds anything to disagree with Kerry about?

Shall we turn every Democratic forum into a bitch-and-moan site? We could all list things we disagree about, and by the time we're done we'll be miserable, we'll have made more people miserable, we'll all want to throw in the towel, and the most dangerous administration in history will get four more years.

Criticism is the easiest thing in the world. It's what college sophomores are legendary for doing because it makes them feel smart. What does it accomplish, in light of our #1 goal? That remains my question.

[geniph]

91. Progressives have a much better chance of being heard

if there's a Democrat - any Democrat - in office than this pack of crypto-Fascist religious freaks. Does anyone truly think that Nader is likely to win? Does anyone truly think that pResident-coked-up-fratboy WON'T win without Democratic unity? Now, mind you, unity does not mean you may not question the candidate's positions. It DOES mean working to get a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in Congress, even if their ideological purity is suspect.

We cannot influence the positions of neoconservative Repugs, at all. We DO have some chance of influencing the positions of Democrats.

(And by the way, Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. Particularly on the environment and women's issues. I'm a Kucinich supporter - and a Congressional District delegate for Kerry.)

[usscole]

97. Constructive criticism is appropriate

The point of DU should be to discuss the liberal political agenda without simply becoming a "me to" club. Kerry is not perfect, but he is the Democratic candidate and I assume everyone here (except the Naderites) is going to vote for him. It is completely appropriate to point out Kerry's imperfections if the objective is to offer ideas as to how he can be a better candidate and, thereby, increase his chances of victory. Potshots, however, should simply be ignored.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. But anti-Kerry spin and innuendo is not.

Your post is off topic. The original poster wasn't discussing constructive criticism. The original poster was discussing anti-Kerry spin and innuendo.

It is nothing but false logic when someone criticizes 'Topic A' to defend 'Topic B' and pretend you've answered the criticism.

[usscole]

99. It is not off topic

Oversensitive people interpret constructive criticism as spin.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. "Is not - is too" -- that's the best you can do?

To quote Monty Python "That's not an argument, it's just contradiction"

"Oversensitive people interpret constructive criticism as spin."

So what? The question was, "Why do people post anti-Kerry spin and innuendo here?"


Are you trying to say no one ever posts anti-Kerry spin and innuendo here?

LOL That is obviously untrue.

[Forkboy]

104. "That's not an argument, it's just contradiction"

"no it isn't!"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. Do you have a point?

Or is this just another failed attempt at humor?

[Forkboy]

107. Damn...I worry sometimes

It's a quote from the very same sketch you just quoted.Good grief :eyes:




M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

M: An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a

proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just

the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

[MoonRiver]

113. Thanks, I needed that refresher on bullshit spin!

Sometimes, I actually take all this carp seriously! :D

[Goose3five]

108. I won't post anti Kerry Spin

I won't post anti Kerry spin, as a matter of fact for my first post I want to call everyone to action for a moment. For over a month now I have been hosting a link to the Pledge Your Vote site at Congress.org. I know many of you are not necessarily Kerry supporters, but this site only gives you two options (welcome to a two party system) Kerry or Bush. From the time I began hosting this link through early this afternoon the country was almost entirely blue with Kerry holding a roughly 2,000 vote lead over Bush day over day. Well, that all changed today when the folks at FreeRepublic.com decided to get out the vote and encourage their ranks to pledge. As of now, the entire country is red except NY, MA, VT, RI, and DC with Bush leading Kerry 11,511 to 7,327. This is a sad site to see and one I hope we can change and quickly. Please take a moment and pledge your vote, and when you are done make sure to pass the site on to as many people as you possibly can!

You have two options (actually three but I won't point you at FreeRepublic):

Either go directly to the site http://congress.org/congressorg/pyv/stats/?action=stats
or go to my blog http://goose3five.blogspot.com/
and click on the hiddeously red map of the US.

[Tarheel_Dem]

109. done...

thank you. i've forwarded the link to friends & family.

[Goose3five]

112. Can someone with greater posting priviledges repost this?

I wonder if someone with greater posting priviledges could repost my message as a new thread? I am afraid it will be missed otherwise.

[takebackthewh]

111. I think it's a way to get all the mud out there and see what sticks.

It's not necessarily a bad strategy. If you want to win something, you have to know where your vulnerabilities are, so that you can address them.