Elected Democrats are playing out of their league.

[Cyrano]

Yeah, I know the Democrats are in the minority in congress and there are only a very few who will speak up. But for the most part, we're talking about a party of appeasers whose member's biggest fears are that they won't get reelected, or they'll piss off some voter in Missouri or Ohio.

George Bush could go on live TV, say "The Democrats are un-American pigs who need to be rounded up, penned, and saved for winter feed," and the Republicans would cheer him on and tell us all how brilliant he is. After the past six years, I don't see a statement like this bothering the American public in the least.

Hey, elected Democrats, try to get this through your heads. If they could kill you, they would. You're in-house motto has to be, "No more Mr. Nice Guy." You've got a choice. Stop throwing cream puffs at them and throw rocks instead. Who knows, you may even win.

[mmonk]

1. Got your flame retardant suit on?

Too many don't want to hear it.

[seabeyond]

3. alst 24 hours i listened to kerry hit three things put out by republicans

so if i point this out, i dont want to hear it. basically what you are saying about dumb ole me is i cant refute and point out the dems that have been speaking out cause i am being illusionary, ?(what, thinking i am hearing and seeing this)?, becasue i dare to mention kerry three times in 24 hours spoke out about three different things rpugs put out

[mmonk]

4. Some dems like Kerry are speaking out.

Some are speaking out against the ones that are.

[Ioo]

8. He did NOT speak out after 2004, he laid down and took it, until now?

I have very little respect for what Kerry has to say, to little to late.

[mmonk]

12. Better late than never.

For some dems, late even hasn't come yet (at least not enough yet).

[Zhade]

58. Agreed, and I like the honesty in your reply.

Instead of spinning things to say "yes he did but it was all secret blah blah blah", you acknowledge what happened and go from there.

Refreshing!

[Warpy]

13. As I recall, Gore also took a year or so off after his campaign

Personally, I think it's because campaigns are exhausting and having them controlled by party conservatives left both men drained and unsure of who they really were. They needed time to get back to normal.

Whoever the candidate is in 2008, I hope s/he refuses the kind offer from the party of those campaign handlers/managers.

[Ioo]

16. Yah, and I don't really care what he has to say too...

You will have seen no "hero worship" from me when Gore said what he said 5 years after it needed to be said.

[seabeyond]

19. kerry took off until the middle of january in 2005. not even a year

come on people, gonna diss someone at least give facts. i know you arent dissing, this is for the other posters

[itzamirakul]

15. Ioo, I said nearly the same exact thing that you are saying on another

thread and of course it was flamed terribly. There are those who willingly forget how easily Kerry just gave up and sat down.

I said I will never vote for him as President again and I mean it!

No Kerry
No Hillary

For my money, they both belong in the private sector and not in government. Hillary is my senator and I don't even want to see her re-elected for THAT job..

[seabeyond]

18. you say kerry has done nothing except last 24 hours and then pissed

cause someone dare say that isnt true.???

really i am not getting this.

[Ioo]

21. Agree 100% - Gore and Kerry gave us a lot of Bush Admin

Look, I know GOre had the SCUS step in, but the fact is he won, and he did not fight for the right to be a winner. Kerry just folded...

We need REAL dems, not the "Coast is clear" ones...

[seabeyond]

24. so really it is not that kerry has sat for all of this year and half,

really your issue, (i will clarify your argument for you) is that kerry didnt challenge 2004.

that is a correct statement. saying kerry hasnt stood up at all. spoken out at all.....

is false

[CrispyQ]

37. I think when Kerry capitulated so quickly - the very next day! -

it hurt the dems more than they'll ever know. It was a bad move on his part & the Democratic Party is going to feel it for the next several years.

I know so many people who were psyched that year. First we had F 9/11, then the news finally hit the media that there were no WMD & people I know who have not been politically active (including myself!) got up off their butts & were donating money, volunteering time, putting yard signs in their yard, exchanging information about the corruption of BFEE. We had all heard rumblings of the problems of electronic voting but we felt certain our candidate would challenge any fishy outcomes - & it only took a few days before it was clear that there was definitely something fishy in OH.

People felt huge disappointment & betrayal when he conceded the very next day. I know he claimed that he didn't think he could prevail, but his quick surrender sent the message that he & the party weren't going to fight for us. Even if he didn't prevail, it ws a fantastic opportunity to bring front & center the issues of electronic voting. Many of the dems I know are fully back asleep. They have no interest in following or being involved in politics anymore since they feel there is not really a viable party that represents them.

I believe the '08 election will not see near the numbers that '04 had. Even worse, many of these disillusioned people will not vote this November.

[seabeyond]

41. i was one of the few on this board saying election was stolen

we were being attacked right and left by fellow du'ers when we were pressing and talking about it being stolen, so much so they made a room for us conspiracy theorists to go in to talk about it so we were not continually attacked. for a good year, we were strongly in the minority. it is just recent histroy that so many are on board. and now those very people that relentlessly attacked us about stolen elections are the very one pissed kerry didnt stand up nov 3 2004 to say stolen election.

i find that to be a bit hypocritical and not through thinking and monday morning quaterbacking ignoring a lot of facts happening nov 3 2004.

i remember what happened because i believed 8:00 pm nov 2 when they had bush family in the yellow room the election had bee hi jacked at that point. and i remember the media,.... as they are changing the polls, all the media chimed, and the whiney loser better not stand up and whine that the election was stolen or we are going ot fry his ass. just to get it out ahead of time ust in case kerry dared to dare. i also remember (forgot what i also remembered, lol lol)

my point, year and half later this story has changed from true events then. revision of history, and what has become the easy talking point for us dems against our dem

[seabeyond]

17. but again this isnt true. and again, am i suppose to let a non truth

stand because if i do say something then i am in an illusion world, being a dunny, when in fact the only time kerry hasnt spoken out on any issue was jan 6 and left it to boxer to handle because it was about him. sure enough jan 24 2005 somethinng came up and he was front and center on that issue, and has been since.

your post is wrong. flat out wrong. he didnt start speaking out 24 hours ago.

this is my point. the absurd and wrong is stated and if i do say something than..... what is it i am being accused of, non thinking protecting of our dem? when facts state you arent right?

[Ioo]

23. I did not say that, I said he folded in 2004 like a $3 Chair...

and for that he has lost my respect

[seabeyond]

26. bully for you, that is your argument. fine. i want even try to challenge

that. but your early posts werent so clear on your argument and it was false information

[Ioo]

30. Not false at all... He went to work, and spoke out little about Bush

Look it is clear that yo have some love for John Kerry, yah for you, but he is not the answer the dems are looking for. John Kerry did not win because almost no one voted for John Kerry. I would say that at least half of the votes for John Kerry were vote NOT for BUSH. Hell a head of cabage could have run as a dem and would have done as well. After 2004 he said nothing, he went back to work and I heard from him about as much as I did before he ran, that was NOT AT ALL.

I am glad you love Kerry, I think he was one of the worst people we could have put up, and history has shown me, and many many others were right, because we lost (maybe - we will never know because Kerry folded)

I do not give Kerry credit for going to work... he had a voice after 2004, and until the last few weeks, has choosen NOT to use it.

[seabeyond]

32. almost no one voted ... this is the childish arguing. this is not true

it is false. it isnt even close to being a true argument, if you want to be taken seriously you are going to at least have to be a little, ok a lot closer to the truth. more people voted for kerry than for gore. that is far from your statement almost no one voted for him. i am trying to be as simple as i can so you can understand. you can win an argument giving out correct information unless the premise of your argument is a loser. but to just make up a story, put it out there, and say if anyone challenges is because you "love" the guy, is bllshit.

"I heard from him about as much as I did before he ran"

then you are not politically aware either before or after election. whose fault is that?


"I do not give Kerry credit for going to work"
no you dont. this si a true statement. finally.

"until the last few weeks,"
this is NOT factually correct, but it is in your eyes after all as you say, "i do not give kerry credit"

[Ioo]

34. Your Really wrong here - he got the NOT BUSH vote

Again, I am glad you love Kerry but he got the NOT BUSH vote... The dems could have run a 1974 Ford Pinto, and that would have done just as well. I went to the dem meetings locally, I have my little blog, I work in Washington DC, I am not in some political void here, A LOT of people voted for Kerry because he was not Bush.

For 2008 we need to stand a person that will get votes on his own, because we will not have the "Not Bush" factor this time around.

I am not going to try to educate those that want to remain uneducated, but I shook well over 10k hands working outside of a METRO (Falls Church West and Courthouse) station in VA in 2004 for the dems, and 80% of those that stopped to talk to us said they will support anyone but Bush.... sadly, that was the only choose we dems gave them.

[seabeyond]

42. this is what media and repug talking point was consistantly

that truely pissed me off. accidently left tv on as hubby started playing and in the heat of passion i hear matthews say and of course the only reason people are voting for kerry is because they dont like bush. and all would rather have a beer with bush. needless to say, the moment of passion left for a moment, as i burst out in bullshit. we learned to turn tv off after that. actually we have just turned off tv. the dumbshit media talking point establishing the repug rhetoric just gets my goat

nice of you to share it with me and bring me back t a moment in time that still makes hubby and i laugh

[Ioo]

46. Again, your dreaming, Please read the posts before you respond.

I wish you would take the time to READ the posts you are responding to, clearly from the responces you have given me, and others, you are doing little more than reading the subject line...

I will repeat, I was ON THE GROUND BEFORE the election of 2004, I shook over 10k hands and had longer conversations with well over 3,000 people. I can say with ever shred of my being at stake that at least 80% of the people we spoke to said they were voting DEM because it was not BUSH. I voted for him because he was not Bush, My partner did the same...

It is not the MSM that is making shit up, they are for once saying something that is very very true. Kerry was a lack luster choose, and the fact that he folded quicker then paper at an origmi party proves it.

Sure, I am glad he is speaking now, about time he stood-up for the dems.

[seabeyond]

47. no it is not that i am not reading. it is i do not believe what you are

saying is without prejudice

[itzamirakul]

39. Please read this post...

I understand that you appear to be a staunch Kerry supporter which is your right, but after the presidential campaign and voting debacle of 2004, many Democrats are NOT Kerry supporters.

I think the following post expresses MY feelings about the matter quite succinctly. After promising us that he would not quit...after promising to be sure that ALL votes would be counted...the man quit the very next day. For MY money, I need no further proof that Kerry was a ringer sent in to deflect our attention by the Rove/GOP camp and many, many Democrats fell for the okey-doke and still believe in this Skull and Bones member.

This following post may have been written AFTER you had passed this area of the thread which is why I am re-posting it since I think it is so important for the way that some of us feel about Kerry.

I would support John Edwards right now, but Hillary can go straight to GOP hell.
*****************

CrispyQGirl (1000+ posts) Sat May-13-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
37. I think when Kerry capitulated so quickly - the very next day! -
it hurt the dems more than they'll ever know. It was a bad move on his part & the Democratic Party is going to feel it for the next several years.

I know so many people who were psyched that year. First we had F 9/11, then the news finally hit the media that there were no WMD & people I know who have not been politically active (including myself!) got up off their butts & were donating money, volunteering time, putting yard signs in their yard, exchanging information about the corruption of BFEE. We had all heard rumblings of the problems of electronic voting but we felt certain our candidate would challenge any fishy outcomes - & it only took a few days before it was clear that there was definitely something fishy in OH.

People felt huge disappointment & betrayal when he conceded the very next day. I know he claimed that he didn't think he could prevail, but his quick surrender sent the message that he & the party weren't going to fight for us. Even if he didn't prevail, it ws a fantastic opportunity to bring front & center the issues of electronic voting. Many of the dems I know are fully back asleep. They have no interest in following or being involved in politics anymore since they feel there is not really a viable party that represents them.

I believe the '08 election will not see near the numbers that '04 had. Even worse, many of these disillusioned people will not vote this November.

[seabeyond]

43. i am not only talking kerry. he is just the easiest example of me to

pull out on speaking out and working for us, that a group of dems continue to profess dems say nothing, ever, spineless wussy yada yada yada

so many factors and i dont agree. with so many dems. kerry is just the one i use. so maybe you ought not to assume that the only things out of mouth is to support kerry, but maybe i am challenging the basis of your point, and not dismiss witha simple, you love kerry......

[itzamirakul]

45. Please take the chip off your shoulder...I think if you read my post you

will see that nowhere did I write, "you love Kerry." Instead, I tried to show understanding that I recognize that there are some Democrats who ARE staunch Kerry supporters and your previous posts gave me that opinion. If you are NOT, then so be it.

Let's face the truth...We can blame the media and we can blame the GOP, but our elected Democratic leaders did not use the force of their offices to raise holy hell from the very start of this lying administration and the friggin' DLC, which was in total charge of "who was electable" kept giving us wussies to run for office...just as they are trying to do now with Hillary.

[seabeyond]

49. an now we make the assumption i have a chip. you didnt use words

"love" others did. you did imply i cant think straight because i am a fan. dont decide who i am with assumptions, you will be wrong. and then how smart does that make you. chip my ass. am i not to challenge that. or to be pissed that you dismiss me now, not because i "love" kerry, but because i have a chip. if you want a reasonable conversation quit using key words to dismiss me. like watch out, because you say dems are spinless and dont speak out you will be flamed. that is what i have challenged on your thread, your initial premise. i believe you are ignoring a lot of things dem does, so you can sit in your position, and i am suppose to honor it? i do not. that is not a chip, this is a debate. and saying i am merely flaming, or a fan, or a chip on the shoulder is a lazy way to discuss.

and your whole second paragraph is an argument that dismisses so many events during the period. you may think sweeping comments are a thumbs up to proving point. you want a real discussion we can go thru the event moment for moment, what was created and why and who gets to own their part in it. and it includes a whole lot not to mention corporations, the american people, religion, and the world, islamic fundamentalists and i could go on. but you throw out a lazy attack on dems. fine. hopefully someone, anyone will challenge it. "lets be honest"

[itzamirakul]

59. If I was "dismissing" your posts, I wouldn't take time to respond to them.

But I really don't feel like fighting the 2004 election debacle all over again, especially with a fellow democrat. So I will drop out of this debate with you. I would rather think about who (or whom) I am willing to support as our candidate for Pres in 2008.

[radio4progressives]

48. Well, there is such a thing "speaking out" in a way that puts the choir

to sleep, which is just how Kerry did it.. I had tuned into C-Span yesterday and Kerry was speaking from his appointed spot on the Senate Floor - I honestly had to force myself to stay awake - much less interested. He was running through the same ole - same ole set of tired talking points - completely void of even a modicum level of passion.

I found myself experiencing how the the right wing media whores were describing Kerry early on in the campaign in 2004 - which i deeply resented then: "dreary, boring, and stiff". But just a week or two ago, i heard Kerry on a radio program speaking passionately and seemingly off script. It got my attention.

There's an important lesson here, unfortunately it's been said before and and ignored/dismissed at a time when it was very critical to winning the 2004 election - and just as unfortunately it is still being ignored and dismissed, though it is even more critical today.

Enough of the Talking Points Kerry! Get off the Script please! be a spontaneous, passionate caring CITIZEN, and take a goddam risk for democracy's sake!

[seabeyond]

50. i am truly sorry we have the american people that must be entertained

by a baffoon and a three word three second sound bite to be able to listen to our world problems and what it takes to fix this nation and find solutions.

maybe he can do a tap dance for you

[radio4progressives]

57. Boring Dribble is Boring Dribble.. I'm not an Info-Tainment junkie

I'm a hard core activist seeking truth where ever it leads me and i have to WORK hard to find it because it is NEVER (EVER) available on the MSM.

Al Gore in his recent incarnation (post 2000 election campaign era) never ever puts me to sleep because he doesn't speak with boring over used same ole - same ole campaign talking points. Senator Feingold doesn't put me to sleep, his speaches are fairly long and one has to listen quite closely often. But they are certainly not a laundry list of Democratic party "talking points" (maybe that's why he is able to hold my attention).

Kerry displayed a moment of clarity on a couple of occasions in the past year, and once i even heard him speak out passionately and he was angry (as everyone should be, it is only natural and should be considered NORMAL to be ANGRY these past five years) on a radio interview I heard him on a few weeks ago.

it's unfortunate that he is not able to stay in touch with his inner spirit, instead he turns into an obediant servent for the puppet masters pulling his strings, who ever the fuck they are.

[bryant69]

6. I suppose that many people on both sides of every issue

aren't interested in hearing dissagreement. It's unpleasent to consider people might disagree with you.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

10. Who's the one whose responses are being attacked?

Depends on which side of the argument one stands?

[seabeyond]

22. well mmonk, when your side puts out factually incorrect information

surely you arent suggesting the other side is suppose to not challenge it. look at the things that are said jsut on this small section of the thread. people arent even trying to be factually correct. am i really suppose to keep my mouth shut or accused of starting a flame war. and we know what is being implied about me and my character when you say watch out for the flames, dont we. you have already dismissed anything i have to say as just a hero worship

[mmonk]

25. What facts?

[seabeyond]

28. to say no dem speaks out..... not factual

then to drop it to, kerry speaking out now but not then, again not factual

now finally we have the true statement. kerry didnt challenge 2004 election

bigdifference between kerry didnt challenge 2004 election, from kerry sat down, doesnt speak out, is weak.

he has been anything but starting end of jan 2005

[mmonk]

29. I have no problem with Kerry as some do

but he wasn't agressive enough due to some bad advice from party advisors. The proof not enough dems have spoken out and stood their ground is all around us. Some have spoken out and some actually support some of the present policies now in force.

[seabeyond]

33. at least this is a more factual argument than was first put out in this

thread..... which is what started your "flame war" adn led me to challenge. being a little more honest, or precise anyway, leaves me to say, ok..... that is your view. i happen to see a lot of speaking out. i think media has a tad to do with it. that conversation is totally void in argument but tooth and nail just to pull out that there are "some" dems speaking out

[mmonk]

35. I've never made the claim that none have.

I'm pretty despondent at the lack of real political fights to preserve our system of checks and balances though. Also, the allowing of constitutional erosion and perilous policies by some due to being too scared to fight.

[rpannier]

2. Agree with you

I find it exhasperating that the Democrats refuse to fight back.
Many of them just seem to sit there and take it.
No wonder it's easy for the pukes to sell to the public that the Dems are weak.

[KittyWampus]

27. I find it exasperating DU'ers can't grasp that Democrats DO fight back

but just don't played on the Media.

So instead of paying attention to what the Democrats are saying and doing and then picking up their press releases and appearences and try and broadcast them... you just ignore it and do the GOP a favor.

I suppose you also believe the Democrats have no plan, too.

[Ioo]

36. So cryingshame, If we at DU don't see it - Maybe they should fight harder

Perception is far more of a reality than reality. If many here at DU don’t see it, they clearly they should fight harder…

We are probably the most critical of the dems, but I also think we are looking for the fight and not seeing it. I am not saying that SOME dems are not fighting, but clearly not all are.

[rpannier]

38. No I don't. I know they have a plan

But, the Dems make very little attempt to actively counter puke attacks. I have watched this scenario play out for over forty years. The pukes make one, or more outlandish statements about the Democratic Party or the candidate, we don't counter and the statement sticks.
If you don't think that is true, you haven't been paying attention to history. Michael Dukakis chose not to respond to bush I's attacks and everything bush's team said was believed.
The left hates America? You don't believe it? Neither do I. But guess what throughout the 70's and 80's that's what I heard from numetrous people. The liberals hate America, they hate the Army, etc. The liberals response was so weak that in 88 we didn't want to be called liberals. We became 'progressives.' In an interview in the 88 Presidential race, the moderator used the term liberal in the same sentence with Dukakis. The Democrat said, "Dukakis is not a liberal, he's a progressive."
On an episode of the Simpsons they did a segment that was supposed to be at the Democratic Convention and the banner read something to the effect of Dems can't govern effectively.

I am not interested in returning to that era because it sucked.

[tatertop]

40. The damage Kerry did by not fighting for us is irreparable

Everything you say is true.

[Ioo]

5. I agree 100% - Dems need to kick them while they are down...

and when the Republicans say anything, you stand and say "Damn right, we have done it your way, and look where we are!!"

[European Socialist]

7. K &R.

[unblock]

9. blame the damn media, not the democrats

the democrats know the media's rules.

(1) support of banana republican policies => all the airtime you want.
(2) weak protests against banana republican policies => limited airtime.
(3) strong protests against banana republican policies => zero airtime.

given the options, the democrats usually choose (2).

the formula MIGHT be changing now that shrub's popularity is in the 20s, but i wouldn't count on much.

[Ioo]

14. I think that is a cop-out

look agree that the media is nothing more than the puppet of this Administration, but there are still places to be given time. Right now even the media is a little iffy about Bush, so this is the time for Dems to press hard...

Look here is something that the Repubs do great, and the Dems SUCK at... they are always campaigning, they never stop... Get out of your office and onto the streets, go back home and do it locally, your local paper will give you all the local time you want...

You know someone on AAR said, the Dems should bring the business of the Senate to a creeping halt until they get a real independent counsel to investigate all this NSA shit… that take NO media… Dems are pusses!

[mmonk]

20. It's not the media's fault if an elected dem lays down

and gives up principle for comfort.

[seabeyond]

51. how many of you were fighting election fraud nov 3. cause if it is

everyone that are now yelling kerry laid down on nov 3rd, i ask you, where were you nov 3rd cause you were not speaking up on this board.

[partylessinOhio]

11. Every Democrat that stands up against the Bush regime

will be respected and win their election. We cannot win from a position of weakness - where we seem to be comfortable standing at the present time.

[Cyrano]

31. Ummm, if I could get a word in here, we seem to be fighting each other.

We are not the enemy. The Republican party, the MSM and big business are the ones fucking us over every second of every minute of every day.

How about we turn our anger, bile, wit and wisdom on them and stop trying to beat each other over the head. Or am I being too naive?

The only way we're ever going to beat the barbarians in charge is to get tough, stay tough, and don't give up even after the last vote is (so-called) "counted."

These Republicans are sewer rats and the only way to fight them is to get down into the sewers and rout them out. And then rebuild our country so this can never happen again.

[Mr_Spock]

44. What are YOU doing to change the culture in this country?

I propose that thy protesteth too much.

You do know how to gather signatures to get onto a ballot don't you?

[Cyrano]

52. Given my lack of charisma, I couldn't get elected sewer inspector.

Does this mean I'm not allowed to complain or offer advice?

Read my post just above yours (post #31) about how we're all making a big mistake by attacking each other.

[Mr_Spock]

56. Aren't you being a tad contradictory here?

I mean, I think the Dems are trying to change the culture, but it takes time.

If all we're able to do here is fight when you criticize the Dems, do you really think it's any different between Dems on Capitol Hill?

I wasn't attacking you, I was merely trying to point out the breadth of the problem, which I think you are now realizing as well.

Lay off the Dems, this is going to take time and they will need our help. I'm all for constructive criticism.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Woohooo! Yay! You're The Bestest! Hear Hear! Go Cyrano! You Rock! Yay!

I mean, that sort of response is the only reason you posted this thread right?

The democrats have shown balls and backbone on so many occasions that have made me proud. Lord knows the MSM will barely touch upon that though, but if you've ever actually sat down and watched C-SPAN there shouldn't be any doubt in your mind as to how hard some of our dems fight for our causes. Threads like this are dime a dozen, same sentiment over and over, yet never any real new substance different from any of the other million and one "the dems are weak" attention seeking threads.

[seabeyond]

54. i like you omc, have i told you that, lol. so, are you flamer, chip

on should, a fan, or just love the dems in you dimwitted know nothing way, lol lol. funny you

[Cyrano]

55. And you are running for senator, congressperson, alderman, school board?

Please enlighten me as to your efforts to change the world. If this sounds sarcastic, it is.

I've already stated that by fighting each other, we're wasting our time. So I'll tell you what. I won't say it again.

But please continue attacking me and enjoy yourself. I guess changing the world isn't that much of a priority. Stupid me.

Oh, the wasted keystrokes. The horror. The horror.