I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
What are those half-dozen ways, Atrios?
The problem with Kerry is that he is a waffler. "I am for the war and I am against the war." Don't think that Rove-n-Co won't be able to crush him with that. That is why, IMO, Kerry is not the best choice. Dean or Clark are the only two that are "clean" enough to run against that idiot son of an asshole.
What are those half-dozen ways, Atrios?
Sorry, let's not turn this thread into an attack on Kerry. This could easily be used by Republicans to bring down a potential candidate.
As a Kerry supporter I think it will go something like this:
1) waffler on the war (his tortured explanation of his vote is ready made for the Junta)
2) MA Liberal....Dukakis' LG
3) Radical Environmentalist
4) Baby Killer
5) Wants to confiscate your guns
6) socialized medicine (they always bring that out)
The GOP slime Zamboni is primed and ready to roll. With the whore media at the controls, the Democratic nominee will be subjected to personal attacks the likes of which have never been seen. He'll be lucky to escape with his balls intact.
I agree with Nameless. And I agree with Atrios' post, but I also think the opposite is true, that Kerry can make examples of his patriotism that bush certainly can not. His Texas ANG record is on C-Span every day, so many people know about that. The veteran that went to Iowa to speak for him said that he had voted repug in the past, but he went home, and changed that, so he could vote for Kerry. IF Kerry decides to fight back, this would not be such a gigantic issue. Didn't Cleland not fight back very hard?
That may be, but what if Bush's desertion from duty becomes the issue it should have been in 1999? If it can be hounded home, and proven beyond a doubt, it is then Bush who would be on the defensive.
I am still disturbed by Clark's denial that he hadn't looked into the facts of Bush's service period. I don't believe it. He knows damned well what the facts are, so why would he deny it? Perhaps there was something more to his denial than meets the eye?
Maybe Clark was sending a subliminal message, that if Bush wanted to attack someone (say Dean, for supposedly "skiing the war away") Clark might then decide "to investigate", but as long as Bush did not attack the Dem candidates, the issue would be left to lie. If that scenario is the case, I think that is also the wrong thing to do. I say, we need to get the truth to the people, ALL OF THE TRUTH, ABOUT EVERYTHING Bush has done (and not done), and let the chips fall where they may. Surely, the truth about Bush would be far more damaging than anything any of the Dem candidates have done.
"What are those half-dozen ways, Atrios?"
1. "He said he's against the war! He questions Dear Leader!"
2. "He committed war crimes in Vietnam!"
3. "He looks French!"
4. "He's got that filthy Jew-blood!"
5. "He's a Democrat, and Democrats are incapable of True Nationalistic Fervor!"
6. "He's a big, sad tree-face! He's an Ent! Those damn Ents sheltered fag hobbits and fought against our Eisengardian fatherland!"
Kerry has an EASY way to transform his war vote:
I voted the way that I did because Misleader and his Misadministration LIED. It was simply inconceivable to me that an American President and Secretary of State would LIE so blatently.
And then list the lies.........
Clark probably knows the basic facts, but hadn't anticipated the question and didn't want to risk screwing up a minor detail. If Clark's facts were totally accurate, airtight, and documentable, but he (for example) accidentally referred to Bush serving in the Mississippi National Guard, the headline the next day would read "Clark misstates Bush's service record."
This is going to be pretty sensative, and the Dems may want to wait to make it a big issue when it gets closer to election time. If this becomes a big issue now, it might be the last we see of it. We need this in August-September, not January.
There is an excellent post on Orcinus regarding Peter Jennings question and how Clark responded. I think Clark handled it extremely well. Its Jennings who ought to be doing the fact checking, instead of asking obviously biased questions.
And just what will Kerry do if he should win the Presidency?
There is no indication he was an outspoken opponent of the current administration when given the chance during his tenure in Congress.
If he's fortunate enough to end up as President, I predict the Congressional Republicans will roll him again and again without so much as a whimper of outrage.
I was born and spent 3/4 of my life in massachusetts. I like Kerry, but I am not sure if he would be able to overcome the animus a "northern liberal" would encounter in the south.
I think South Carolina will be of more interest to me than NH.
Kerry may be able to tap into some of that 65% who support the war. I think many of them might support the war because a nasty man was ousted. But do indeed feel misled.
Also, he can blunt the unpatriotic thing if people are constantly reminded, via surrogates, that he's a combat hero.
Finally, if some veterans groups go after Bush, it could help.
It's already started. The trollish Bob Novak asked Kerry on Crossfire about his tossing his Vietnam war medals--Kerry parried the questions quite well, but that will remain the point of the attack. I take heart, however, from what Al Giordano (the guy who really called the Kerry victory in Iowa) has written in that Big Left Outside blog: that Kerry is never more formidable or ferocious a candidate than when he's cornered and provoked. Once his alpha male is aroused, his opponents should beware...
It wasn't so bad, that Clark thing. It was an invitation for someone else to dig the dirt. I'm sure someone will, now.
Are we going to have to be like this the entire rest of our lives?
I don't want to trash Kerry fully, but I don't like his dirty politics (push polls, getting on the lying bandwagon about his opponents), and I don't like his dissembling about his war vote. I don't think he's a waffler; I think he voted to give Bush power because he thought it was the politically expedient thing to do and now he's constructing a story about his vote that I just don't buy. In other words, I think he's a political animal with a tendency to tell fibs.
I don't think Kerry's going to win the generals because Bush can play dirty politics like nobody's business and because the rethugs can live down being AWOL, take us to war on lies, and still live to trash a war hero and make fun of the fact that he brings it to our attention. It's just not enough to make his previous political success and his war background central to his campaign. Frankly, the way he rolled over on the war, one would have to wonder if he's only successful because the thugs let him be.
Dean, on the other hand, and to a lesser extent, Clark, dish it out creatively. Whoever said that now was not the right time to discuss AWOL was right; leave it for the presidential campaign when it can really hurt like hell. Dean is utterly unapologetic about his views on several so-called controversial issues: abortion (medical decision to be made privately), the war (pack of lies), civil unions (otherwise is unconstitutional). I think it totally defuses these situations, leaving him to attack the shit out of the miserable failure on issues that are current and meaningful.
You cannot run against an incumbent based on resume. You cannot run against the Repubs by letting them set the table, and picking from their menu. We will not beat Bush based on trying to run a candidate who we think can be more patriotic than Bush. The problem with trying to run what we believe is the most electable candidate at this time, may not be the most electable candidate 8 months from now. John Kerry has all of the traditional negatives a Democratic candidate brings to the table, plus he is a Senator, which traditionally has not been a good place to be as a presidential candidate. We do not need and establishment candidate at this time. I believe that this the candidate that the Bush/Rove want the most. Kerry has no wildcard component. Edwards, Dean, and Clark bring a wildcard to the table that scares the Repugs.
I admire Kerry for protesting the Viet Nam War after completing his tour of duty there. But his vote for the Iraq invasion was a huge disappointment to me. He, of all the candidates, was in a position to know better. Of course, if Kerry gets the nomination, and that's still a huge "if," I'll vote for him. But I just can't find it in myself to support him now.
Brian - yeah, but have you noticed how Clark has been hammered by the press because he didn't refute what Michael Moore said about Bush's desertion or chastise Moore for saying it? Heads I win, tails you lose.
As for Kerry, he's a smart guy, but he doesn't have a prayer in the general election if he's the nominee. When he attacks on the Iraq War, Rove and Co. will recycle his words about how the capture of Hussein made it all worthwhile. Plus he looks French. And he's too wooden, like Al Gore was, though not as unforgivably animated as Howard Dean.
Today on TNR: "Why None of the Democratic Candidates are Good Enough to Lick Dear Leader's Boots."
And for all of you who think Kerry's service in Viet Nam will make him seem more patriotic, I have two words: Max Cleland.
Well, as President Dole remarked in 1997, his record in the military was absolutley key in the defeat of Bill Clinton in 1996.
President McCain said something very similar in 2001 when he remarked upon the hard fought 2000 primary.
"Bush had everything," he said."They had the organization, the willingness to play dirty, even the willingness to question my patriotism but all of that was effectively neutralized by my service in Vietnam."
At a fundraiser for Senator Max Clelland, retired President George McGovern agreed:
"There were times," he said, "when I fell into a deep hole of despair over Germany in 1943. What good is this, I thought. How is this helping humanity to bomb German cities. Little did I realize that 25 years later, it would help me squeak by Richard Nixon so I could end a similarly destructive bombing campaign in Vietnam."
Indeed, as also rans Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush learned, the American people often see military service as a necessary right of passage to becoming commander in chief.
I think Kerry would be an okay president if elected. I still don't know enough about him to say he would be a good president. But I am pissed with him for needing Dean to make an honestly expressed anger be okay.
I in no way question his patriotism.
But before he gets elected, he may have to answer questions about his founding Vietnam Vets against the War, or why he kept his own medals but tossed the medals that others had given him away.
The question and that charge have already been brought up, and answered, but I am not sure the media or the swing vote will be listening to the answer the next time the issues are raised.
The Deanie-Greenie logic goes something like this:
Since anyone who becomes the Dem nominee will have his patriotism attacked, it is okay to nominate Stubby Dean, who begged for a deferrment from the draft because of an allegedly bad back and spent the Vietnam war skiing in Aspen.
Yeah! That's the ticket! Let's nominate the candidate weakest and most vulnerable on defense because Karl Rove would say bad things about Kerry or Clark if they were the nominee.
What the Deanie-Greenies miss about this is not that Rove will attack the nominee, but how plausible those attacks will sound to the voting public. Trotting out a loser like Howard Dean is suicide. At least Kerry and Clark could credibly fight the smears. Dean could not.
Gillespie is already going after Kerry. A reporter on C-Span said that when Kerry won Iowa, she called some Junta operatives. Their first reaction was, "You know, he's not a moderate. He's really liberal."
I think they have different advantages and disadvantages with the candidates. Dean's a wild card for them, but they'll kill him on the bs patriotic thing. They're scared of Kerry because he'll look like an adult next to Bush. They're worried that people might just like Edwards more.
I heard that someone found footage of Kerry slogging through the muck in Vietnam. At least that will be a nice contrast to "Mission Accomplished".
The way I see it, the Max Cleland comparison to Kerry and patriotism, etc., is not worth talking about. The situations are entirely different. Different offices, different constituents, and sure-as-hell different circumstances now than in 2002. I think it's safe to say that if we knew now what we knew then that the outcome would be different. And there's the part about the Dems learning from their '02 mistakes and running better campaigns this time around, which appears to be happening.
Politus,
No. I have no strong opinions on who is the "most electable." I just question the reasons of many for coming to their own particular conclusion, and worry those reasons, if believed by the campaigns themselves, will be their ultimate demise.
if voters were convinced Max "I got 3 of my 4 limbs blown off in Vietnam" Cleland was an Al-Qaeda operative...then the GOP will make John Kerry look like Tokyo Rose!
Mark my fucking words!
politus, what a load of horseshit.
SWR said it better than I've seen it said before - when even service in WWII fails to put a candidate over the top, what makes you think service in Vietnam, a war which no one views as our country's finest hour will do the trick?
New flash for you pal: Almost half of the voting age population is under the age of 45. Vietnam means nothing to them; they were never eligible for service in that conflict. And the attitude of the majority these days seems to be sorrow and pity for those who were pressed into service in that conflict, and "good for you" for those who managed to avoid being sent. Service or non-service in Vietnam is a non-issue.
I will always have trouble with Kerry's vote for the war - I would never support or contribute to his campaign - the most I would do is vote for him holding my nose -
Kerry - especially Kerry - should have known better than to vote for the war - there were lots of valid voices and experts warning against it.
I wait with fear and trepidation for the nomination. Whomever wins it will have a huge organization behind them this time around. At the same time, whomever wins it will get the shit kicked out of them on all fronts, and will have to be able to fight like hell. I have no doubt Dean, Clark, and to some extent Kerry will do it. Kerry appears to have the most to lose; he's still the most worried about appearances. Edwards is doing the nicey nice thing, but he's going to have to show some teeth, too.
I sometimes wonder why exactly McCain didn't go after Bush more aggressively on the issue of his military service and the only conclusion I could come up with was that he knew it was going to be a close race and he didn't want to create an opening for the Democats in the general election.
OT question for the board: Are the primaries a "winner takes all" proposition? Or are they set up like the Iowa caucus, where delegates are assigned according to the percentage of the vote won by each candidate in the state primary?
Josh Marshall made the same observation about Kerrey.
Kerry's playing Wes Clark's game, whether he can out-Wes Wes, especially in the south, remains to be seen.
My money is still on the proposition that after Feb 3, we will have a new front-runner.
The Deanie-Greenie logic goes --
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
lol, Republican Slime Zamboni, TownDrunk sure comes up with some of the best images...
Sorry, let's not turn this thread into an attack on Kerry. This could easily be used by Republicans to bring down a potential candidate.
Yo Nameless: let's not get "Kerry'd" away (HAHAHOHOHEEEHEEE!) with our own sense of importance.
I'm sure Karl Rove's oppo machine really doesn't need US to feed him material.
Having said that, let me once again state that I think the MYTH of Karl, self-flogged you know, has actually grown bigger than his power to obfuscate the facts and control Amurica. There has been too much leakage from under the bathroom door, lately, of things you would have thought ol' Turd Blossom would have had well under control. Start with Valerie Plame and work downward...
OT, but I see the great Steve Gilliard had to go into the hospital for a last-minute heart valve replacement... think good thoughts...
Read David Brooks this morning and of course he killed Kerry with kindness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/2.../24BROO.html?
th
If you look back over the span of John Kerry's career, you find that every few months or years he takes a hard look at some thorny public issue. Then, after some period of reflection, he unleashes his inner Moynihan and comes out with an interesting and politically dangerous speech.
The problem is that he almost never follows up. When he makes these speeches he habitually asserts that he will mount a long public crusade. But then he takes his controversial ideas, jams them into a jar and buries them in the backyard.
If you watch him campaign today, you will have no clue that he has ever had interesting thoughts on education, civil rights, poverty and so on. On these and other issues, he campaigns as an orthodox Democrat, comfortably in tune with Ted Kennedy and the party's major interest groups. Far from continuing in the reformist vein when it comes to education, he has a core platform plank that is pure pander: "Stop Blaming and Start Supporting Public School Educators."
SWR,
I don't think people are saying Kerry's military service makes him a shoe-in. It's just that it can't hurt a democrat to be a war hero. For some unknown reason, the R's have an advantage in the national security/patriotism area.
One good sign is that Kerry's people already fired off a retort when Gillsepie attacked him on "values". And when Delay attacked Kerry's patriotism, Kerry responded by saying he would compare his military record with that of Delay and Armey.
Right now, this minute, Kerry and Dean have more or less the same position on Iraq. Neither would withdraw American troops just yet.
And putting Kerry in office would also get rid of the extreme-right. Bush wouldn't get to appoint any more judges. Kerry wouldn't push the defense of marriage act. We'd get rid of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.
Dean's also pissed off the Senate and might be Jimmy Carterlike in his inability to compromise and Deal with Congress.
I'll vote for Dean against Kerry in the meaningless New Jersey primary, but Kerry's probably as good a choice to be president as Dean or Clark.
He chose not to committ political suicide by voting against the war. He's not a hero but he's preferable to Bush by lightyears.
Kerry - especially Kerry - should have known better than to vote for the war - there were lots of valid voices and experts warning against it.
The successfull way to Beat Bush is simply to be a better fighter. That means campaign smarts, spin-ability, a mix of positive and negative ads, and - knowing how world events create unseen responses from the electorate- luck.
None of our guys is perfect and were they so, the refrain would be the same: The best fighter, plus luck.
All we can do is make the best guess and convince others who can carry the best fight forward. Guys with the best credentials who'd be champs at BEING Prez, don't always win because getting there is not their strength.
Jeeezz, we're turning into the old Soviet Union. When will we see missle parades down Main Street?
seems like this website is becoming more and more devoted to squabling and attacks amongst ourselves...think I'll go elsewhere from now on....it's sickening, some of the things I've seen written ab out Kerry in these posts.
One more thing, with regard to my comment about Rove, above... Tomato observes:
I wait with fear and trepidation for the nomination. Whomever wins it will have a huge organization behind them this time around. At the same time, whomever wins it will get the shit kicked out of them on all fronts
See? We all just ASSUME that Karl Rove is the demon spawn of Beelzebub and Liza Minelli! Okay, well maybe he is, but he is NOT insurmountable.
I want you to try and picture in your mind's eye Karl Rove unleashing Hell (and he will) on Democratic Presidential Nominee Howard Dean.
Ask yourself: do you really see the Dean campaign rolling over? Even a 52-48% vote on behalf of Dean, which of course would result in a Bush re-election 
, would leave the second term Bush REALLY bruised. Issues that spread-legged two-dollar crack whores like Peter Jennings and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews refuse to cover properly, would be all over him like shit from an exploded Depends, for the next four fucking years.
Dean. Word. One way or another, it works for all of us.
If people are foolish enough to vote Kerry (or Clark) just because they were in Nam, well, you're living in a dreamland. If you don't think monumental lies will be built around quotes or actions taken out of context and repeated ad infinitum, just to grab that 2% of the swing vote who isn't paying much attention, well....
Wake up.
I hope the anti-War crowd can look beyond Kerry's vote on the Congressional resolution. We can't afford the luxury of spending our time glazing at the rear view mirror. Even Dubya realizes that it is a misadventure and is moving quickly to extract ourselves from Iraq.
Kerry would be a very strong candidate (I'm a Clark supporter) because he's a war hero, articulate, media savy (this is Dean's weakness) & gives as well as he gets. For someone like me, on the left, I especially like the fact that Kerry is a genuine liberal, has been for over 20 years. This is true from his positions on social programs to a nonmilitaristic foreign policy. And Kerry has the depth of experience to be an excellent president.
it's sickening, some of the things I've seen written ab out Kerry in these posts.
coffeequeen
Oh just wait until Rove gets through with him.
Regarding Kerry and tossing the medals...Kerry was asked about it on CNN and hesaid he tossed his ribbons, not his medals. As he did so, an old photo of him at the White House throwing them over the fence. CNN closed in real close on an object in the air, blowing it up and showing it to be, indeed, a medal, not a ribbon (for those who don't know the distinction, a ribbon is the thing military people wear over their left breast pocket on their uniforms). Not a knock on Kerry, but a statement about how the press is going to deal with Kerry.
Fuck this shit.
Yes. I wouldn't punish him for one vote.
He's engaged himself for all of his life in the issues, going to Vietnam, protesting it, serving in the Senate.
He's not a drunken frat boy who's daddy bought him an oil company.
I think the service in Vietnam isn't going to matter with the pro-war crowd but it is something that should be counted in his favor. You really can't fake serving on a PT boat in the jungle. Kerry could have just as easily spent the war in grad school screwing hippie chicks, smoking pot, and going to an occasional anti-war protest.
And Kerry has the depth of experience to be an excellent president.
At this point in time, I figure it's Bush's or the incumbent's election to lose.
If Bush does prevail, the Democratic candidate for President should lead the vocal opposition to the Republicans all the way through Bush's second term.
Unlike Gore, he should be on the talk shows every Sunday throwing lightening bolts and conducting press conferences every step of the way.
I can see Dean doing this, I can't see Kerry, Clark or Edwards in this role.
The real reason the Pugs have the "national security" vote is because they are willing to be shameless jingoists--they wear their nationalism on their sleaves. Ditto with their brand of Xtian fundyism. If you aren't flaunting it, you aren't a true believer, basically. The Dems believe patriotism and religion are private matters.
ABH: What will Kerry do if he is president? Well, one thing I can guarantee he *won't* do--and neither will any pluasible Demcoratic nominee: he won't appoint judicial nominees nearly as right-wing as Bush has done for the lower federal courts and would in his second term do for the Supreme Court.
Of course I don't deny that the Democrats in the Senate have sometimes been too willing to *go along with* the appointment of right-wing judges by Republican presdients. But that is something very different from saying that any Democratic president would make such appointments himself. (The Democrats voted overwhelmingly to confirm Scalia but *no* Democratic president--not even Lieberman!--would have appointed Scalia in the first place.) Just as it is a fallacy to argue that the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq would therefore, if they controlled the White House, have sought such a war themselves. (Lieberman is the only possbile exception there.)
I'll admit that most of my "praise" for a Kerry administration may seem to be of a purely negative nature: he won't get us into war with Syria or Iran, he won't press for school vouchers or privatizing Social Security or a ban on same-sex marriages, he won't appoint Scalias or Thomases, etc. Call it "damage control" if you want--but it's probably all that *any* plausible Democratic candidate, including Dean could accomplish in the face of a GOP Congress.
SWR: It was not political suicide to vote against the war. What senators did vote against the war, and how have they suffered. Even during the first half of 03 they didn't suffer.
Sorry, but I have to admit that I love the Dean Breakdown 1 Remix, its GOLD!
"You know something...
You know something...
MICHIGAN! AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO THE WHITEHOUSE AND MICHIGAN AND OREGON AND MICHIGAN! AND CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN!
YEAH!
thought I'd share
David T - I'm not sure what your point is.
Any one of the Democratic candidates will do what you say. That is not an argument for Kerry as the one best candidate.
Even more to the point than Cleland, who was a Democrat, think of what the slime machine did to McCain. Push pollers asking people in South Carolina if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had black children (gee, it didn't stop them from canonizing Strom, did it) and running an ad in New York saying he was against breast cancer research. And McCain was a Republican, one of their own. Get ready. I don't care who is nominated, this will be one of the ugliest, most vile, dirtiest and most dishonest smears in the history of American politics.
Who was it who said "character counts"?
Neither Clark nor Kerry can drive the "AWOL Bush" story home. It's too risky. If the press was unwilling to run with it in 2000, they're even less likely to do so in 2004. If a Dem candidate brings up the issue, they'll likely face a thousand outraged Peter Jenningses assuring the public that it is scandalously untrue. Others must do their work for the candidates on this issue. In the unlikely event that the media actually run with the issue, there will be plenty of time for our guys to be shocked and outraged. This issue is best left to Moore, Begala et al.
2004- John Kerry
2000- John McCain
1996- Bob Dole
1992- George Bush
Yeah...we'll really get the voters with the "I was in war, my opponent wasn't!" argument...
The point is not patriotism, it's credibility on national security. Bush has an advantage because a lot of Americans think that xenophobia, a taste for dressing up in flight suits, and boundless enthusiasm for unilateral military aggression has something to do with keeping them safe.
My guess is that the only candidate who can offset that to any useful degree is Clark -- not because he's a war hero but because he's a career military professional rather than a career Democrat. People will be willing to believe that he knows stuff about national security that the White House Wanker doesn't.
Whether that's a good enough reason to nominate is another question.
But as I said, patriotism is beside the point.
Could it be that Democrats learned nothing over the last 10 years. Repubs will say and do anything to slander the Dem nominee. If the Dem candidate is not willing to get in the gutter with the rat wangers, they can't win. Every charge must be countered with 2 charges against Dubya. There should be plenty in the Democrats arsenal to use against Smirky AWOL. Democrats must create their own propaganda department that will answer Rove quickly and decisively. WTF, I know Democrats know this shit, but do they have the balls for the fight?
Regarding Kerry and tossing the medals...Kerry was asked about it on CNN and hesaid he tossed his ribbons, not his medals. As he did so, an old photo of him at the White House throwing them over the fence. CNN closed in real close on an object in the air, blowing it up and showing it to be, indeed, a medal, not a ribbon .... Not a knock on Kerry, but a statement about how the press is going to deal with Kerry.
2 cents worth
But isn't this a knock on Kerry? Why would he lie about this? Does he not know what technology can do, when and if CNN, or Fox, or Russert, wants to use it? He's just giving them ammunition with shit like this. Poppy was beaten because he hadn't kept his technology skills up with the common person. Kerry's got to get with the action!
The defense is meaningless. The attack is practically everything.
Clinton seldom defended his actions. He shifted the grounds of the discussion. He apologized from Jennifer Flowers, etc. And he talked about positive "stuff" (I'm intentionally non-specific here). He didn't wrap himself in an image guaranteed to make him "look" better than Bush I, or Dole, or Gingrich/Delay/et al.
I think the mistake Kerry would make is to create a static "image" and depend on that to win the day for him. Images get broken, quickly. Or people get tired of them. Kerry can't rely on what people think today; that will change tomorrow. Trying to win as "more patriotic than thou" will simply play into GOP claims that its all about patriotism, and Bush the Super-Patriotic President has kept the elephants, er, I mean, the terrorists, away.
Not a winner for Kerry. He needs to present many more reasons for being President than he's really been to war, Bush hasn't. That has all the appeal of a school-yard fight. Maybe fun to watch, but only until you realize there's something good on TV.
Before we start posting David Brooks' column, for the record recall that a week or two ago he issued an apology of sorts for weird statements he has made in previous columns.
One particular statement that was a real belly buster was his assertion that Bush's total lack of planning for a post-war Iraq was actually a good thing.
I would take anything Mr. Brooks says with a very small grain of salt.
Bushies will tear whomever the Dem nominee apart. But at least Kerry will not face the charge of emotional instability that will dog Dean throughout his campaign. Kerry has not said that he does "nutty things" as has Dr. Dean nor has he called for Greenspan's resignation and then within a few hours recanted that statement on CNN.
With Dr. Dean the only thing you are guaranteed is a gaffe a week. You can bet on that.
Kerry voted against Desert Storm and for the Iraq invasion. Has he ever made any explanation of the disparity of the votes? What about his vote against the $87 billion?
"They're all Howard Dean now," Ed Gillespie, RNC chair said last summer.
Conservative NH newspaper Manchester Union Leader has already ridiculed Kerry for "turning tail" on his support of the Iraq invasion and "undercutting soldiers" by voting against the $87 billion.
All of the above who point out that the Republicans are going to go all out to slime the Democratic Nominee are, of course, right. Kerry is far from my ideal candidate but it wouldn't matter if he was perfect. queen crab and cosmic grappler are right, they'll make it up and their slavish whores in the media will spread whatever lies they come up with. Our candidate will have to run against the media. Clinton did it and is the only Democrat to serve out two full terms since FDR so it can be done.
I was wondering this morning if Max Cleland wouldn't make a good VP candidate. He's certainly had an education since losing to that Saxby scum. I don't think he'd let it happen again.
Let me go a bit further with that. If Kerry relies on being "more patriotic than thou" as a way to beat Bush, it's Dukakis all over again. It's worse. It's Dukakis in the tank, all over again.
Dukakis famously came out of the convention dismissing Bush and measuring the Oval Office for curtains. He thought his "image" at the time would carry the day. Just as Dean thought his "invincible" image would carry him through the primaries. Didn't work, and now he's re-tooling.
Madonna was smart enough to know that you change the image as soon as the public is used to it. Politicians have to learn the same lesson, and in the Presidential race, image has to change almost weekly. Not so often as to appear "slippery," but often enough that you don't get categorized and left behind in the next news cycle. And all images are used up by the fall campaign, when new and improved images have to be trotted out rapidly in order to maintain enough interest to get voters to the polls in November.
Fighting on grounds of "patriotism" is fighting on GOP territory. "It's the economy, stupid," wasn't a good idea because Bush ignored the economy. It took the fight to ground Bush I (and yes, now, Bush, Jr.) didn't want to fight on. That's how you win. Give people a reason to believe you have a better idea.
Not that you are more of the same as the other guy, only new and improved.
Conservative NH newspaper Manchester Union Leader has already ridiculed Kerry for "turning tail" on his support of the Iraq invasion and "undercutting soldiers" by voting against the $87 billion.
jennifer poole
The Union Leader is a Republican slime pit which has a long history of trying to knock off Democrats they see as a danger to their party. I wouldn't believe anything that appears in it, especially if it runs as an editorial. Luckily they're not as influential as they once were. William Lobe, the worst newspaper editor in the US during the 20th century, was the defacto govenor of NH for the better part of two decades.
The resume is nice. But really, this campaign, as cliched as it sounds, will be about the future.
Whichever candidate paints a more appealing vision for Americans, will win. That's what Clinton did.
The attacks can be dealt with, and must be dealt with-- but what I think Atrios was getting after, and what I really worry about, is that Kerry thinks he can win based on his resume, and that his resume will automotaically deter attacks (same with Clark, by the way). It's not about that. It's about exciting people and having a vision for the future.
I also don't see how Kerry can win in the South. Dean at least has his pro-gun record to run on.
Also, that anti-Iraq war funding vote WILL definitely hurt Kerry, and Edwards.
I swear I don't make sense to myself anymore.
"It's the economy, stupid," was a good idea, I meant to say, because Bush I wanted to ignore the economy as an issue. The only time he tried to pay attention to it, he ended up like Dukakis in the tank. Clinton's concentration on the economy took the fight to ground Bush I didn't want to fight on.
And, having heard Rove interviewed on NPR the other morning, neither does Rove. His responses to issues like job losses, were laughable. And yesterday the Bureau of Labor released statistics showing the poorest paid actually lost 3% of their income over a period (1 year? sorry, don't remember, but within this Admin.) when the highest paid lost no ground at all.
You can't spin issues like that. It's still the economy, stupid. And like the election between Bush & Clinton (when the pooh-bahs all said the economy was "in recovery"), the unemployed and underpaid and overworked, all live in a different reality from the press pontificators.
ok atrios.
as a big fan of yours - and from the far left wing of the democratic party ... the che guevara wing. show me a candidate that has a better chance at beating AWOL in november... and i'm on board, i've poured over each candidate for months - really like dean alot, but am convinced kerry has the best chance. show me otherwise bigguy.
the league of conservation voters endorsement today is a plus for me.
But at least Kerry will not face the charge of emotional instability that will dog Dean throughout his campaign.
You really don't get it! So, BFD, he'll face a DIFFERENT "scandal du jour". Has nobody here or in Amurica in general stopped to recall that "anger" was also the charge against REPUBLICAN Bush opponent John McCain?
Let me explain something to you. These political operatives do not sit around, going, "Say, I have an idea...!", as we here so often do. They do PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH. The examine what potential voters are already thinking, feeling, believing. And they play into that.
Take Kate O'Beirne's revealing comment (noted elsewhere) that the AWOL story was floated "AND NO ONE CARED". How the fuck do you think she knew to say that? Because it happened to be true! No one DID, according to their numbers!
Someone at GOP did a wad of research, and found that the story did not have an initial burst of "legs". Possibly because the populace was Clinton-fatigued at the whole "draft dodger" thing. But it wasn't playing in Peoria. Not to say it couldn't have, if flogged mercilessly by Gore. Which it was not, probably for this exact same reason of "research"!
2000 GOP tactic? Come right on out and POUND the fact that "NO ONE CARED!" Prolong the effect, via perceived peer pressure. Very evil stuff, but this is how it works.
"Anger" was something they focus-tested a long time ago. "Nobody likes an angry guy", some pollster (Frank Luntz!) told the GOP, the first time around. So McCain became "too angry to be President". The mind-blower for me is that they could just take this shit out of mothballs, dust it off, and use it again, against Dean. Supposedly, the Jenningses of the world didn't even notice.
So if you're gonna let the phony-baloney rap on Dean wuss ya, fine. Support Kerry. Just don't come crying to me, when "waffler", "traitor", or some such storyline becomes the meme for John Kerry. They got a playbook on everybody.
I'm not arguing in favor of one candidate or another in terms of their "electability." I have my opinions, like everyone else, but unlike most people I don't think too much of them. No one knows the answer to that question, even though we all think we do.
Jeffers - You make a good point:
... the mistake Kerry would make is to create a static "image" and depend on that to win the day for him. Images get broken, quickly...
But you first need to establish an image in the public mind of who you are....Dubya - I'm a uniter not a divider, leave no child behind, Washington outsider blah, blah, blah ... Clinton - Washington outsider, its the economy stupid etc.
Once the public feels comfortable with you then the dynamic becomes important. Once Kerry can get a public image as a war hero/patriot across & negates Dubya's image as superior on national defense, then the election is all about domestic issues - weak job situation, anti-worker, environmentally weak, anti-abortion. If this happens, Dubya loses.
"undercutting soldiers" by voting against the $87 billion.
what a crock of shit, most americans will see by next fall where all that dough went, and kerry can easily ask... why would i vote for 87 billion to pay halliburton to build iraqi schools and highways? when we we should have been spending that money here at home.
The problem is that the Dems must cross every T and dot every I before a story in their favor will even be considered by the media. W is under no such constraints. He lies with impunity, insults the press whores, and they lap it up. "What has God told you to do today, oh Great One?"
It's fucking sickening, and no one as yet has a strategy for fighting back.
Many folks, including Atrios, miss the point of Kerry's assertiveness re: patriotism, the military and security.
On a political campaign there is only offense. If you are playing defense on any issue or theme, you are losing.
Whoever the Dem candidate is, they must be able to go on the offenseive on issues of the military, security and patriotism -- and they must do so in the language of soundbytes, symbolism and mythology that (unfortunately) decides the media- age presidency.
I believe that Kerry and Clark are the only two Dems who can trump Bush on this because of their combat-hero status.
Bush will be forced to try to go on offense in other domestic policy areas (economy, health care, education, etc.) where Dems are even stronger.
Carter--
I agree. Better a "patriot" than not, I suppose, especially in these weird times.
But the thesis seems to be Kerry thinks that will win for him. Nothing wins for you. You win for yourself. If Kerry decides image is all he needs, and one image will do, he's doomed.
That, at least, is what I take to be the thesis of Atrios' post.
"What are those half-dozen ways, Atrios?"
Well, for one thing, a Kerry nomination means we will refight the rights and wrongs of Vietnam. Imagine: "Kerry was a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War! Those traitors made us lose the war! Jane Fonda! Abbie Hoffman!" Etc.
Atrios: well said. Have you ever read the Isaac Asimov science-fiction novel 'Foundation'? Among other things, it refers to the future science of 'psychohistory', a sort of combination of statistics and psychology wherein even making public speculations about a given event, if enough people change their minds as a result, can change history. If everyone is trying to analyse and counter-analyse, accurate predictions based upon what we know now are impossible.
"Accurate predictions based on what we know now are impossible," anyway.
Sorry to point it out in what seems like a blunt fashion, but ever relied on a 5 day weather report before?
I seem to recall CNN splashed a headline about the coldest days in 25 or 45 years coming up. Has that happened already, and I missed it?
Can't tell you how many forecasts for weekend weather here in Houston turn out to be 100% wrong on Saturday morning.
And predicting elections? Fuggedaboutit. No Heisenbergian principle involved. Just not nearly enough reliable data or predictive models to be worth anything.
hey, I'm well aware of Manchester Union Leader's conservative lean.
we're talking here about how the GOP will, in fact, slime Kerry. At least, so I thought.
The Leader's talking points are a good preview.
Sen. Max Cleland didn't fight successfully against the GOP's slime campaign against him, and to see him at Kerry's side does not reassure me.
Especially as Sen. Cleland some weeks ago just quietly left the 9/11 commission to take a job at the Export Bank.
Jeffers, I have a little article on the economy, stupid. here.
It's got some interesting figures broken down by administration. Reagan gave the highest income families 10 times the boost of low income families. In Bush I's 4 years, anything low income families gained during Reagan was wiped out and then some. In fact, LI families took 7 times the hit of high income families. Clinton was all good for everybody (twice as good for rich as for poor, though).
Then along came Shrub. In his first two years, the 20% of families with the lowest income have seen almost 6% lost, while the 20% of families with the highest income have seen 3% lost. I'm sure the top 1% had no problem at all.
The 2003 numbers are going to look dire, I'll bet, because of the tax redistribution, continuing sluggish jobs, and the boost in the stockmarket.
I don't mean Jeffers is stupid! Just, "it's the economy, stupid."
I already saw it in a discussion with a friend. They're going to use the incident of his throwing medals over the Capitol fence to show that if he was a hero he squandered it when he came home and went against his country.
They are such fucking assholes. I can't see how they can sit around and talk like that (he squandered his heroism) without smacking each other in the face.
Seriously, can you imagine someone saying, "Well Kerry's not really a hero because after he came home he protested the war." And you just sitting there and nodding politely? I mean, I might nod politely, and then I'd walk away and write that person off as a fucking lunatic.
Like, I met this American in Central America, who wanted to convince me that Clinton murdered Vince Foster. And I shut that conversation down and stayed the hell away from the weirdo after that. Wondered what the hell he was doing in the Spanish immersion program we were both attending; was he the next Oswald or something?
Patriotism is something all the candidates can claim and that nobody can question without looking like a moron. It's not the same color and shape and sound of patriotism in all cases, because everybody's American story is different, but it's patriotism nonetheless.
And I like Kerry pissed off. It was when he was telling Tom DeLay to go fuck himself that I was a Kerry girl.
A.
Why all of a sudden is Kerry in ascendancy?
Is this the result of Wurlitzer-inspired negatives and awkward moments for Dean and Clark? Has Kerry done something positive?
If Iowa residents saw something new in Kerry, what substantive thing was communicated so fast to New Hampshire residents to influence their polling numbers?
Have the core reasons for supporting Dean changed or is the power of the media on display?
Does Tom DeLay look like Damien all plumped up? He's about the right age, too.
Kerry can simply lull the American public into complacence with his droning speech, thereby placing them into that half-awake, half-asleep, dream-like state in which they think that politicians have the average citizen's best interest at heart. It just might work!
I've been reading for a while and can't figure out what the hell SCLM stands for. Can anyone help out
John Kerry.
P. U.
Right up to the day Saddam was captured, he said, "I voted for the war authorization but Bush fooled me."
OK, so this guy wants to run against him and deal with (likely) a Republican Congress???
And then the day after Saddam was captured, Kerry said (and keeps saying), "See? I was right to vote for war!!!"
The best thing I can say about Kerry is that he is not Bush. But I sure can't support him in the primaries. He'll sell out Democrats without a second thought, if it serves him.
The worst, absolute worst attack that can be made about a presidential candidate is that the candidate is emotionally unstable. Except maybe he's a wife beater or murderer.
In these post-9/11 times, no one wants a prez that does not have his emotions under control.
I have seen no evidence that Dean is emotionally rock solid. I have seen him say that he leads with his heart (geez), that he sometimes does nutty things (that really helps) and that he screeches, and that he calls for Greenspan's resignation one moment and then retracts it the next.
These are not media attacks. These are things that Dean does. And nothing and no one can dispute that.
Every day, for geez sake, this guy does something that hurts his chances. He's been speaking and retracting continually ever since he started his campaign.
This will devastate his chances because the Repubs have so much on videotape to work with.
I'm an undecided at this point, Kerry, Edwards or Clark would do fine. But Dean? We'll lose ground in the Senate and that matters to me most of all.
It isn't really patroitism it is jingoism. You can't out jingo a jingo and you shouln't even want to try. The only way to deal with these people is to tell them to stick their flags up their ass. Please remove head from there first. Of course none of this is remotely possible on the part of the jingo or his oppponents. Instead, time after time, we have to kiss that flag/head containing ass. Saying please before hand and thank you afterwards. Because they control the tools of intimidation. They own most of the press and employ most of us. That the patroitism of any of the candidates can even remotely be considered an issue shows that democracy - where the concept of a loyal opposiution is essential - is hanging by a thread.
I agree about "predictions". This kind of junk used to play a much smaller role in "news" than it does now. It seems that getting a bunch of ill informed idiots who passed the complexion test sitting around making predictions (always propping up the establishment position, by the way) passes as news now days.
I remember reading that weather predictions made outside of 48 hrs. had an accuracy rate of about 11%. Maybe today they've gotten up to 13%. Don't know.
You can try to predict but life is seldom predictable. The last prediction that was air tight was that Dole would lose because no one outside of Kansas likes him. I'd have banked on that one being right.
They've got a better chance at predicting the outcomes of their polls, since they slant their questiions to get the outcome they want, and those, oddly enough, match their predictions.
Just the facts, people.
Speaking of facts.
Made a mistake above, Lobe was the publisher, not the editor of the Union Leader. Think I got it right now.
And this computer is doing that to me again!
That was me.
I got the impression that Iowan Democrats want someone who can win, and for whatever reason, many think that's Kerry. He seems a safe bet.
I hate to knock down Edwards, because I supported him up until I saw him a week before the caucuses. I was like Josh Marshall, totally pumped up during his appearance, and feeling hungry later. I gotta say, he's got sex appeal, and I'd have to characterize a lot of his supporters as swoony women. Also, the whole positive thing appeals to a lot of people.
I've been reading for a while and can't figure out what the hell SCLM stands for. Can anyone help out
SCLM == So-Called Liberal Media
DeLay looks like just what he is: a fucking cockroach squasher.
I got the impression that Iowan Democrats want someone who can win, and for whatever reason, many think that's Kerry. He seems a safe bet.
Tomato Observer
Or Iowa was stolen.
Phoenix Woman and Jeremiah ellis have pointed out some illegal actions by Kerry.
Then you have this
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...4votefraud.html
Wondering about the Iowa "upsets"?
Well, let's check the ballots.
Oh, wait; there aren't any....
Well, let's check the machines.
Oh, wait; we're not allowed to....
All but two counties in the Iowa Caucuses used DRE e-vote technology.
And we'll never be able to verify the results.
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/
...oVoteSystem.pdf
Welcome to election 2004©, brought to you by ES&S, Diebold, Sequioa and the Bush/Cheney Pioneers.
It's not too late to stop the takeover of our democracy.
Ignorant Cali,
So Called Liberal Media.
Anonymous, I disputed the claims in another thread. It's not impossible to steal Iowa, I guess, but it's darn hard. Here's how the caucuses work:
There are lots of people in the room. They get into their caucus groups. Negotiations go on, but eventually everyone lands in a group or goes home. Then, the # of delegates are assigned to each group, and the caucus groups elect delegates. I was elected to represent the Dean group, for instance (we got only 1 delegate out of 6 total for my caucus). It's extremely transparent. Keeping track of votes doesn't make sense because there are a ton of witnesses, and it's not a vote.
The possible intervention will be when we go to the conventions. Apparently, delegates are allowed to change their votes. I would not do that, because I don't want to disenfranchise the other 17 people I represent. But I suppose it's conceivable there are infiltrators.
dave - thanks for letting us know about Steve Gilliard. That's scary. God, January has been a sucky month for things like that. (Lots of major medical emergencies for people I know/am related to. Shit.)
I'll definitely hold a good thought.
Kerry's alright but looks like he'll be paying a price for trying to trash Clark (saying Mike Moore's comment was over the top and not what Kerry's campaign is about)
Sludge reports Kerry said the same thing in 2000. Good for him for saying it then, bad for him for trying to score points at Clark's expense by denying it's a legit issue.
Focus, focus, focus.........ABBA
Focus, focus, focus.........ABBA
blitz1
The Band?
Couldn't hurt.
"In 196_, my patriotism led me to fight in Vietnam. Where did your patriotism lead you in 196_, Mr. Bush?"
Problem solved.
What I can't believe is all the liberals turning on Kerry now. The man has had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and people are talking about him like "he's not a 'real' Democrat."
Charisma may even turn out to be a positive for Kerry, like W's stupidity was. Both traits are so obvious that bringing them up simultaneously makes you look mean and allows them to exceed expectations just by showing up. Dukakis has the same problem, but Dukakis wasn't a fighter like Kerry is.
The area where Kerry is *really* vulnerable, though, is the Philly cheesesteak issue. To have any shot of beating Bush, he needs to be seen eating one with both hands every day until November, otherwise he's toast. Fucking Heathers.
If Kerry had used half the energy that he's directed at other Democratic candidates to oppose Bush on the Iraq war, maybe things would have been different. He's an appeaser.
Tomato Observer
Wednesday i checked the leaderboard totals and 50 still had not reported in.
I also noticed that there was absolutely no fluctuation of the totals.
If there is a known DIEBOLD problem, and there are rumors of stolen votes in 2002, why couldn't the same thing happen again?
Does have to be the Kerry people rigging the totals? Could it be DLC? Maybe Rove?
It would be harder to discount if BBV problems did not exist.
ABBA - Anyone But Bush (Again?)
I don't think Kerry can beat Bush. If Kerry gets the nomination the election will become a snore-fest, with Bush spending his $200,000,000 on God-knows what, and the media ignoring anything Kerry says in response because he's so boring.
But they WILL show his awkward attempts to connect with regular people. He looks really dumb when he does that.
I was for Dean until the Iowa fiasco primarily because I believed he could win. He had taken huge leads in the polls and that was good enough for me. Now I think that Dean is badly damaged. People want safety and a reasonable level of predictability of conduct from a candidate. Kerry looks like a good bet now that hes a proven winner. All that Dean has proven is that he can lose an election that was his to lose and that he is capable of making a complete ass of himself on national television. If we nominate Dean we are going to get creamed in November.
Clancy Wiggum
" But Senator Kerry you did vote to support President Bush in his war efforts, correct?"
" Senator Kerry you fully understood the powers granted to the president within that legislation, right?"
" Senator Kerry many of your fellow Democratic senators did not vote for the legislation, if you saw a problem why didn't you side with them?"
Bang Kerry bites the dust.
I was for Dean until the Iowa fiasco primarily because I believed he could win. He had taken huge leads in the polls and that was good enough for me. Now I think that Dean is badly damaged. People want safety and a reasonable level of predictability of conduct from a candidate. Kerry looks like a good bet now that hes a proven winner. All that Dean has proven is that he can lose an election that was his to lose and that he is capable of making a complete ass of himself on national television. If we nominate Dean we are going to get creamed in November.
leviticus65
So, if Kerry gets the nomination and he drops in the polls, you will then vote Bush "looks like a good bet now that hes a proven winner".
Whoever gets the nomination will get smeared any way Rove can think of.
The media will spare no effort to whore themselves to the enemies of democracy.
Fortunately, any of the candidates is more than qualified to send that pampered wastrel back to his fake cowboy ranch.
Channel-surfing yesterday, I clicked onto CNN at the moment that Kerry was being interviewed by Begala and Novak on the issue of Bush's alleged AWOL status from the Alabama Air National Guard. What I saw ignited my fury and despair at Kerry's - and by extension the Democratic Party establishment's - failure to recognize how vicious, how unprincipled, how relentless the "GOP slime Zamboni" (thanks, TownDrunk) will continue to be. Contra to the opinion of an above post, such performances persuade me that the Democrats have learned nothing from 2000 much less 2002.
Novak first asked Kerry to respond to Wesley Clark's failure to repudiate Michael Moore's inflammatory remarks for which there were, according to Novak, "no allegations." Kerry gravely replied that it was not an issue he wished to discuss.
Evidently surprised by his passive response, Begala followed up by asking why this wasn't a relevant issue. "After all your hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe, conducted extensive research and published several articles on the matter in 2000 (paraphrase). With his august - no doubt Presidential - demeanor, Kerry again demurred. "This is something that happened over 30 years ago. This is not what my candidacy is about," proceeding to mention several unrelated campaign positions.
Ignoring Kerry's high-minded wish to avoid matters of over 30 years ago, Novak pounced with the question of Kerry throwing away his Vietnam War medals. Of course, CNN dutifully screened an image of Kerry protesting at the Washington Mall in 1970. Hastily interjecting that he threw away his ribbons NOT his medals, Kerry labored upon a detailed answer to Novak.
Failure to muster interest, let alone indignation, over a well-documented incident in Bush's career. Respectful responses to thuggish questions from a Republican partisian posing as a journalist. And considering that this line of questions broadly touched upon issues of national defense, why didn't Kerry take the opportunity to ask Novak whether he planned to tell the grand jury who leaked Valerie Plame's name to him.
In his above post describing the character of the upcoming election, Cosmic Grappler perhaps underestimated what Democratic candidates can expect. Will Democrats ever learn and respond accordingly?
What's with this last paragraph in the WaPo's editorial today?
http://tinyurl.com/2qc4c
"In this case, there are legitimate reasons to worry about Mr. Dean's temperament that the speech stirred up but didn't quite exemplify. Mr. Dean's problem is not that he's given to, as he joked to David Letterman, "crazy, red-faced rants." Rather, as we've said before, the more serious concern about Mr. Dean is his admitted tendency to speak before he thinks. "I lead with my heart and not my head," he said Thursday. Not terribly reassuring, and more reason for unease than Monday's outburst."
Didn't Bush say that it was his "gut" feeling that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Someone help me out here. I tried googling Bush and gut, but didn't get the exact quote.
I'd like to send a letter to the WaPo and ask them what's the difference between leading with one's heart and leading with one's gut. And why they think Bush's gut leadership is less worrying than Dean's.
Seraphiel
I think the Bush gang are in major trouble. The recent announcement that after the G7 meeting in Feb, the dollar is expected to drop even more, can not be good.
I also firmly feel that a number of business leaders, Soros for example, are making as many cuts at Bush as they can get.
He may slide on big issues but so many small issues, Kay's recent statement and the Cherie Blair quotes, will weigh him down.
It is like a knife fight, bleed em slow and they weaken.
He managed to piss off the base with the immigartion proposal.
He is in far worse shape politically than either side wants us to know.
But, overall he is bad for business, when that happens it is the death knell.
Didn't Bush say that it was his "gut" feeling that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Someone help me out here. I tried googling Bush and gut, but didn't get the exact quote.
I'd like to send a letter to the WaPo and ask them what's the difference between leading with one's heart and leading with one's gut. And why they think Bush's gut leadership is less worrying than Dean's.
Shaw Kenawe
Ivins has a whole article about W's gut.
Worth the re-read.
"Vote John Kerry. He's Better than Bush."
If the only thing we can say about a candidate is that he is not quite as bad as Joe Lieberman, or that he's not a Republican, why should we support him? I find it strange how many otherwise intelligent people are so eager to buy right into what the media wants them to think, and then act accordingly. We talk about the nefarious Wurlitzer all the time, yet when it begins to play, everyone commences to dancing instead of questioning why it's so out of tune. Barry seems to be the only one that's still filtering reality out from the apparently successful mass hypnosis the media is perpetrating. Folks should take heed of what he has to say.
In his above post describing the character of the upcoming election, Cosmic Grappler perhaps underestimated what Democratic candidates can expect. Will Democrats ever learn and respond accordingly?
mooswan
Will they ever stop swilling in the same money trough as Republicans?
Thanks for your post, the two military men failed to do their duty by ducking the truth.
Honor my ass.
People are missing the point by dinging Clark and Kerry for not going hard after Bush on the AWOL thing. Learn from the Republicans: the candidate stays above the fray. You use your surrogates to go after your opponent. It's people like Begala, Carville, Moore, Franken, and company who should be hammering this day after day and keeping it in the news.
Oh, BTW, Tacitus is a fucking tool. Squandering the lives of 50,000 Americans and 2 million Vietnamese was peachy-keen, but Kerry holding the American flag upside down to protest that loss of life is the disgrace. If that's the reasonable face of conservatism in the blogosphere, what are the real jerks like?
[posted in a different thread, but it seems more appropriate here]
DRUDGE ALERT... developing...
FLASHBACK: Kerry in 2000 claimed it is a matter of character that Bush
avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No
documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in
Alabama in 1972... 'Those of us who were in the military wonder how it
is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken
that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining
where it went,' said Kerry... Developing...
FLASHBACK: KERRY ALLUDED TO BUSH AS DESERTER
Hoooo boy! I can't believe Drudge is this clueless that he doesn't know
that keeping this issue alive is the last thing Rove wants right now. I
wonder how it will be before Drudge get's the call from Bush HQ....
HQ: Drudge! Ixnay on the esertionday! STAT!
Shaw:
I think the "gut" quote is from Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War".
An audio clip of that quote, I believe, was played on 60 Minutes when the book was first published and Woodward was promoting it.
Bullshit. Matt is a Deaniac. If the GOP wants to dredge up the medal-throwing or whatever, bring it on. That 'opens the door' to AWOL-in-Alabama.
Yoda and Mooswan have put their finger on what it is about John Kerry that makes me nervous. People keep insisting he's a fighter, but I see no evidence for this. The Crossfire appearence Mooswan mentions just above is a chilling preview of what I fear we can expect from a Kerry candidacy: A craggier version of Al Gore, who meekly and snivellingly laps up every piece of abuse that's doled out to him by the GOP and the media as the election approaches, and who never, ever fights back.
I posted this elsewhere, but I can see the first debate of the election fall out thusly if Kerry is the Demcoratic candidate:
Bush kicks Kerry in the ace.
Kerry (whining): "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"
Bush kicks Kery in the face.
Kerry (whining): "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"
Bush kicks Kerry in the face.
Kerry (whining): "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"
If I were an American citizen, I'd vote for Kerry if he's the nominee (just as I would for any of the others apart from Lieberman), but I'd not expect any better from him than we saw from Michael "Grovelling Worm" Dukakis.
what I'd like to see is Clark and Kerry, if questioned about Moore and/or the anti-war stance is say "I proudly served my country for X years and here are my service records. WhistleAss has been called a deserter by Michael Moore. a deserter is someone who does [and gives the short legal definition], aWol is [short legal definition.] since WhistleAss has refused to release his service records I can't answer if he is a deserter or was just aWol, but I'd like to see the records so that I can honestly say he has nothing to hide. while he's at it, I'd like him to stop hiding the records of what happened prior to IX/XI so we can find out what went wrong and prevent another tragedy like that.
on Dean's war record, I'd go at it like "I received a medical deferment, similar to the ones that [rattle off the names of the chickenhawks like Limpballs, Asscroft, Chenron, etc who had the same or lower deferments] for a condition that would have prevented me from serving in the military to the standards that they expect. I'd be happy to make this record public, and would like to see WhistleAss' service record to know that he served to the high standards expected by the US military.
"People are missing the point by dinging Clark and Kerry for not going hard after Bush on the AWOL thing. Learn form the Republicans: the candidate stays above the fray. You use your surrogates to go after your opponent. It's people like Begala, Carville, Moore, Franken, and company who should be hammering this day after day and keeping it in the news."
The problem with this line of thinking is that the whores outnumber the non-whores 10 to 1 in the media. That means, like it or not, that the Dem candidates themselves have to do a certain amount of heavy lifting. They don't have any other choice, especially if they want to combat the tidal wave of slime that'll be thrown their way. Kerry's disgusting performance on Crossfire last night didn't exactly reassure me that he's up to the task.
To use your examples, Moore and Franken don't have regular gigs of their own on tv, and Carville and Begala aren't liable to do anything that'll ruffle the DLC's feathers. And the DLC won't want the candidate fighting back in any meangingful way. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
via mooswan
"This is something that happened over 30 years ago. This is not what my candidacy is about"
Actually, it is good medias strategy for the candidate to say this, but they must do it while attacking. Clark handled it perfectly. Kerry was pathetic, and, I agree, it is depressing. When will they get it? It's now or never, IMO.
Earlier, Cornbread said:
Neither Clark nor Kerry can drive the "AWOL Bush" story home. It's too risky...they'll likely face a thousand outraged Peter Jenningses assuring the public that it is scandalously untrue.
I disagree here in the sense that the entire campaign is risky, period. We face a numerically superior opponent (more money, more media access and control). If the Dems try to play ropadope, they WILL LOSE.
It is wise, as Cornbread says, to let others do the work as much as possible, but the Dem candidate, on this an other issues, must practice Mutual Assured Destruction.
The first time they are personally attacked, they retaliate on TV. The talkings heads will say its unproven? Yeah, right. Kerry, Dean or whoever can bring a copy of the documents showing Bush's record to a fricking interview on the today show and reach in his jacket pocket, pull them out, and show them to the camera. Then they would turn to the interviewer and say: "when are you going to start doing your job?"
High risk, sure--but there's NO WAY TO AVOID this risk if you don't want to get stomped.
What about his health? You guys actually think that his cancer treatment won't come up, perhaps subtley but it WILL emerge for sure....I am a survivor too but I know its going to be in the back of people's minds and will be talked about again at some point. There is nothing mentioned about it on his web site (not that I expected it) - but if he doesnt surface and deal with it openly, Bush certainly will if Kerry becomes the Democratic nominee. What do you all think?
Well the fact is that the wheels are coming off the Bush presidency. Every day there is a story in the Dallas paper about one of the major Bush scandals - the Plame case, the Halliburton mess, the economy, the job losses - so right now as far as I'm concerned, Seraphiel has nailed it. Every one of the front running Democratic candidates looks like a potential Democratic president.
The conservatives here in Texas are mighty pissed about the immigration proposal - so don't talk to me about Rove's genius anymore. The timing was absurd for Bush. Rove should have caught that. Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Clark - they are all electable.
Didn't Bush say that it was his "gut" feeling that invading Iraq was the right thing to do?
i think it something more along the line of "god told me to strike afganistan and i did... then he told me to strike iraq and i did"
sound like osama bin laden at all?
If that's the reasonable face of conservatism in the blogosphere, what are the real jerks like?
Like this.
First off: Go Dean
The "electability" thing is making me insane. Basing one's precious primary vote on whatever “electability” means amounts to your doing other people's thinking for them. Think for yourself! The point of a primary vote is to support the candidate who you think will do the best job. I don't care who you're for, it's your job as a voter in the primary to support the candidate who in your own mind would make the best president. The polls we see are the easiest/cheapest way for the media to throw something together, with cool graphs and knowing looks between blow dried morons who by and large know nothing about good government and care nothing about you other than getting you to watch TV. So vote your conscience - it's not about being on the winning team. Any one who doesn't base their vote based on their convictions has already conceded defeat, which is exactly what Rove and the rest of them want you to do.
ps Go Dean
You know - I respect both Dean and Kerry on their Vietnam experience. If I have the dates right, Kerry went around 1965, when most people still thought Vietnam was a noble cause, like WW2. By the time Dean was wiggling out, a few years later, most smart people tried to get out of it any way they could. I'm their generation, and you had to be there. Service in Vietnam has a dark side to it.
I don't think Kerry will get any traction from this. Being young and willing to risk your neck in a combat situation does not seem to qualify someone for the presidency in any way to me. I don't think the macho thing means shit to women. It's part of the problem - not the solution. Frankly, I greatly prefer Dean's kind of macho - he's standing up to the bullies for us, like a good father.
The Democrats make the mistake of running their campaigns on the defensive. Who can we run that are so perfect that the Republicans have no way of attacking them is a ridiculous way of running a winning campaign. The best way to run a winning campaign is to be on the offense, something that the Republicans have learned very well.
This why so much of the right wing media time is devoted to bringing Dean down and why Kerry and Edwards, who finally "get" Dean are emulating his strategies now.
Democratic voters who are searching for the candidate who the Republicans can't attack (is electable) are kind of like battered spouses who think if they dress right, and clean the house perfectly, and cook the best food, and lose weight, and act sweet and loving that there spouses won't beat the crap out of them. Their spouses are going to try to beat the crap out of them no matter what they do. They'll just find something else to attack. The battered person can't win until they take the offensive regardless of what her abuser thinks. And this is the only way that Democrats will start winning.
When you hear the RNC call Dean angry and pessimistic, think of it as the batterer calling his or her spouse too emotional and crazy. There's nothing wrong with passion, there's something wrong with the RNC.
This is getting really stinking annoying. Here again we get from Atrios still another post knocking Kerry.
Remember the taunting posts Atrios put up when Kerry was losing steam earlier on, for example, about how he was "losing a point a day"? Funny how little mention he ever made of Dean's far more precipitious slide when that happened, you know? Remember how concerned he was that we Democrats not come up with criticisms of Dean, lest we be doing Rove's work for him? And NOW Atrios is telling us he can easily think of five different ways Rove could come at him over patriotism, practically inviting people to do Kerry in?
What the hell is wrong with you, Atrios? It's your blog, but if you can't keep your snotty attitude toward Kerry in check, who is after all at this time the most likely Democratic nominee, maybe you should stop pretending to anything approaching neutrality, and just tell Kerry supporters that we aren't welcome.
Believe me, we'll keep away.
No one answered my question upthread about how primary delegates are awarded in various states - proportionally, or winner take all?
It matters, and here's why: the recent reports of Howard Dean's demise are premature, and if delegates are awarded proportionally, probably just flat-out wrong. Kerry may win New Hampshire with Dean showing a strong second. Edwards may win S. Carolina with Dean showing a strong second or even third. Clark may win Oklahoma with Dean a strong second. Then we get into the dates where there are multiple primaries. Kerry and Edwards don't have the money to really compete all-out in all those primaries, and Clark by having opted in for public financing will have limits on what he can afford to spend in each state. Dean faces none of those problems.
We may well see the other 3 candidates walking off with the top spot in various state primaries, with Dean collecting delegates as the second-place finisher in many of them - and the overally winner in term of delegate totals.
It's going to be a wild year.
Well the fact is that the wheels are coming off the Bush presidency.
I hope you're right, Tena. But, as they say, "hope is not a plan".
Also, I think some of these guys are just sociopathic enough to drive the Car of State off of a cliff, as the wheels come of, rather than simply be defeated.
Democratic voters who are searching for the candidate who the Republicans can't attack (is electable) are kind of like battered spouses who think if they dress right, and clean the house perfectly, and cook the best food, and lose weight, and act sweet and loving that there spouses won't beat the crap out of them.
Hansel, this metaphor surfaces from time to time, and it really is one of the best, since it most vividly indicates, in psychological terms, how the Dems have to change.
Kerry can beat Bush as long as he stays on the offensive. The problem I have is why is no one attacking Kerry the same way Dean was attacked. This will only strengthen Kerry and shields and prepare him for attacks down the road. Listen to Fox opinion channel and right wing radio. Who do they continue to attack? Dean, Clark, and Edwards? I think the best thing that can happen in this race is for someone other than Kerry to win NH. Most preferably Clark. Dean has the money to last a awhile. Edwards finishes in the top four and will look good going into SC hopefully he wins there. I guarantee that the right wing echo chamber will start calling on Dean to exit the race if he loses NH. This would be bad. He also can't stay defensive about the pep rally speech he gave. Obviously the right wing echo chamber got the mainstrean press to attack Dean some more and try to discourage his supporters and thus all the new voters that want Bush gone. The right wing echo chamber just wants to quiet him down. Can you imagine what kind of support he can garner for the candidate if it isn't himself with a rally his troops battle cry to support the winning nominee and help beat bush at the convention. This keeps the right wing echo chamber guessing. It also makes Bush and co. spend money attacking more than one candidate. I think they want to wittle down the field to one at this point. It would great if there are number of high profile Dems coming out of the primary. The press coverage is heating up and people are starting to recognize all the candidates. This gives name recognition to Dems that are in the minority in Congress. It gives people more than just Bill and Hillary to know.
and gore
John D. is right and kimster is a plant.
It's Dean vs. the Uglyamericanswithmoney Party.
In these post-9/11 times, no one wants a prez that does not have his emotions under control.
I have seen no evidence that Dean is emotionally rock solid. I have seen him say that he leads with his heart (geez), that he sometimes does nutty things (that really helps) and that he screeches, and that he calls for Greenspan's resignation one moment and then retracts it the next. -- kimster
kimster,
What's the real story with you? I've seen you over at Kos doin' this same thing. You come into a thread and push a bunch of negative themes on Dean and claim to be impartial -- only concerned with the electability of the eventual Dem nominee. Are you working for somebody?
This thread is about Kerry. Do you support Kerry? If not, why not? How about a positive argument FOR the candidate (or candidates) of your choice, whosoever that might be. Then compare and contrast with Dean if you like. Otherwise I'll just have to assume you're some campaign operative looking to push a meme.
Kerry fought in Vietnam. Dean went skiing. But Kerry's patriotism is a GOP target. Okay. And Pam Anderson is coming over to my house for pizza later.
Got another letter from Carville today asking for money for the DNC. It just pisses me off. I guess I could use the return envelope to send them a rant.
"...the candidate stays above the fray."
Translation: John Kerry is a wimp.
Jennifer, delegates are awarded proportionally in every state in Democratic Party primaries.
vote-smart.org says this is "always" true of the Democratic Party, but I'm not sure how far back the "always" goes.
"The Democratic Party always uses a proportional method for awarding delegates. The percentage of delegates each candidate is awarded (or the number of undecided delegates) is representative of the mood of the caucus-goers or the number of primary votes for the candidate. "
Erik,
I agree that there have been fewer attacks on Kerry than Dean, but I disagree about your explanation.
Why have there been fewer attacks? In my view, because he has far fewer vulnerabilities than Dean. If Kerry had them, they would have been used against him long, long ago, when he was still considered the frontrunner for the nomination.
The truth is, Kerry has conducted his political career and life so that his vulnerabilities WOULD be low. Now you can call this political calculation, but the upshot of his care on this point is that he is remarkably free of baggage that could pull him down, compared to the other candidates. He is also remarkably rich with the ammunition he needs to go on the offensive as necessity requires -- his Vietnam experience being case in point.
How many people remember that Kerry was the first major Democratic politician to criticize Bush severely over his conduct in the war on terrorism, particularly including Bush's incompetent decision NOT to put anything like sufficient American forces on the ground in Tora Bora to cordon in Osama in the very best opportunity we have ever had to capture him? Do you remember how Delay and Hastert responded, attacking Kerry's patriotism? Do you remember how Kerry immediately counterattacked, talking about the fact that he put his life on the line when DeLay and Hastert were scurrying away from military service? Finally, remember the utter silence of Delay and Hastert after this smackdown? Well, I remember, and that's exactly how it is likely to play out in future attacks on Kerry.
Personally, I don't particularly mind talking about Kerry's "vulnerabilities", because, in my view, they are relatively slight, and easy to counter. But I have to say I resent how free and open some Democrats have become on this discussion, when just moments ago, as it seems, they were denouncing any discussion whatever of Dean's vulnerabilities.
And another thing. Kerry is making a mistake pushing patriotism, yet Dean is smart for basing his hopes on "new voters"? Come on! Where were they in Iowa? Oh yeah, I remember -- voting for Kerry and Edwards. Consider this, stolen from Donkey Rising: in a 52-48 national election, ostensibly favoring the GOP going in, the Dem needs to attract EIGHT MILLION NEW VOTERS and WIN EIGHT PERCENT OF THEM. There is simply no way on earth that this can happen.
EIGHTY percent.
"How many people remember that Kerry was the first major Democratic politician to criticize Bush severely over his conduct in the war on terrorism, particularly including Bush's incompetent decision NOT to put anything like sufficient American forces on the ground in Tora Bora to cordon in Osama in the very best opportunity we have ever had to capture him? Do you remember how Delay and Hastert responded, attacking Kerry's patriotism? Do you remember how Kerry immediately counterattacked, talking about the fact that he put his life on the line when DeLay and Hastert were scurrying away from military service? Finally, remember the utter silence of Delay and Hastert after this smackdown? Well, I remember, and that's exactly how it is likely to play out in future attacks on Kerry."
Exactly! But of course he voted for the war, so he's not a real Democrat! As if Dean wouldn't have. Please. Dean is just an oppotunistic a politico as the rest of them, despite the view of his supporters that he sleeps on a cloud and rested on the seventh day.
Look anon. You are furiously spinning against Kerry at the expense of understanding some basic strategy. Of course its wise for the candidate to stay above the fray if that approach earns votes. You could argue that Kerry castrates himself by softselling but balance it against Deans approach and the caucus results and tell me who the castrated candidate is now.
James Wolcott: Hope you're right about this. I'm not big on Kerry but when he shut down Geo. Will on This Week last Sunday my whole family stood up and cheered. It was a thing of beauty. As far as the attacks go, Brooks' column does a slippery job today -- highlighting policies Kerry advocated that Brooks sees approvingly, but which will raise concerns among Democrats. Then he makes the implicit links between Kerry's views and Republicans' even stronger by comparing him to McCain, but without the same tenacity at seeing things through. Of course the real, unspoken comparison is to Our Dear Exhorter of the Faithful's SOTU address.
Kerry fought in Vietnam. Dean went skiing. But Kerry's patriotism is a GOP target. Okay. And Pam Anderson is coming over to my house for pizza later.
Nick
Nick, everything and anything is going to be a GOP target. The trick is to quit worrying about it and start make the GOP the target. Get the freaking targets off of all the Democrats' backs. We play the RNC's game when we obsess and argue about who is most electable. Bush is really least electable on paper, but somehow he got in there.
Dean got a deferment and went skiing. My brother got a deferment for asthma, but he still played football. People got deferments for being flat-footed, but still went on with their lives.
The military wants people who are physically healthy and who do not weigh the rest of the troops down. A guy with deformed hands would be rejected and still could ski. This is a stupid argument that the Dems could turn on the RNC in a second if they would quit pandering and playing their game like Kerry is. Kerry should say, "so what, I protested the war" instead of playing it so Dean is really a bad guy. I'd respect him more.
Those of us who grew up during the Viet Nam war and were awake know that this argument about Dean skiing is just dumb. No one wanted to go to Viet Nam and most went to college and many went to Canada to avoid it. People were killed in the streets protesting it. If the Dems would fight to put things in perspective, they be better off for it. Kerry, for God's sake, protested the damn thing after he found out what a waste it was. It was not something people were all proud about, and it wasn't cheered like a football game.
On the other hand, Bush used a slot in the National Guard to avoid service. Which is worse? Dean being rejected or Bush rejecting the responsibility he signed up for?
Has anybody else noticed that Kerry supporters seem to love slamming other candidates but that they get all pissy if they feel that someone is criticizing their beloved Johnny? Yet, the best they can do in the positive category is to keep hyping his Vietnam service ad infinitum. This has already become a joke among the Republicans, along the lines of, "Hey did you hear that John Kerry served in Vietnam?" - "You mean today?"
Regarding Kerry and tossing the medals...Kerry was asked about it on CNN and hesaid he tossed his ribbons, not his medals. As he did so, an old photo of him at the White House throwing them over the fence. CNN closed in real close on an object in the air, blowing it up and showing it to be, indeed, a medal, not a ribbon .... Not a knock on Kerry, but a statement about how the press is going to deal with Kerry.
2 cents worth
But isn't this a knock on Kerry? Why would he lie about this? Does he not know what technology can do, when and if CNN, or Fox, or Russert, wants to use it? He's just giving them ammunition with shit like this. Poppy was beaten because he hadn't kept his technology skills up with the common person. Kerry's got to get with the action!
Streaker
At least partly because they blew the photo up so much there was no way to tell whether the medal in the air was actually tossed by Kerry or another Vietnam Veteran present. My point was that press will simply manufacture, if necessary, ammunition against Kerry or the eventual nominee.
A joke among the republicans? Im mortified.
Do you remember how Kerry voted for the Iraq war but against the justified first Gulf war?
jennifer poole - thanks for answering my question. I was right - this is going to be a very interesting primary season.
To the Kerry supporters - yes, he's a smart guy and I think would be a quite capable leader. But he's not my first choice, and it's not because I'm using the Iraq war vote as a litmus test (although as someone else pointed out upthread, with his Vietnam background, he should have known better). My problem vis-a-vis his Iraq position is that it's hard to know what it is. First he votes for the war resolution. Then when he sees the traction Dean gained from his anti-Iraq war position he became an anti-war candidate. Then the day after Saddam was captured, he trumpets that it proves he was right to vote for the war. IMO, the last statement was the unforgiveable one, and both his vote and his claim that he was right to vote for the war are what will come back to haunt him should he win the nomination. It will make it very difficult for him to credibly attack Bush on the entire Iraq war issue.
I'm not saying he's unelectable, because along with Atrios, I don't buy into that type of soothsaying. He'll definitely get my vote if he's the nominee. But I'd rather see someone else as the nominee because of this and because he's apparently wedded to the DLC style of campaigning, which is: suck up to big donors and tell the peons to sit on the sidelines. We need all hands on deck for this election, and Kerry's campaign has actively discouraged people who try to volunteer for him. I should know - I was one of them a year ago.
Kerry's not my first, second, or even third choice, but I have to say that I don't blame him (or Clark) for staying away from the AWOL/deserter charge. Remember how the media howled when Dean said that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer? Truth is not a defense with the media whores.
The Kerry spokesman (Jamie Rubin?) who threw the question right back in Wolfie's face the other day was doing it exactly right, i.e. "No, I haven't looked into it. Have you?"
Get the question out via proxies, then force the media to look into it.
The media wants to stir up a sensational story and hang it on one of the Dem candidates as a bright, shiny charge of "recklessness". A little political judo is necessary turn this attack back on them.
mondo - I know hope is not a plan. But it beats the alternative.
I can't guarantee anything, noone can. But the signs are in place, as far as I'm concerned. The press, while still doing a piss poor job, is at least not totally refraining from reporting the bad news about the Bush presidency.
Like Atrios, I've got an opinion, but mine isn't even fully formed, because it's too early, from my standpoint, to say. I'm just glad that I feel hopeful right now.
TIME TO GET NASTY
Okay, remember that what I'm about to write here does not necessarily reflect my opinion and if my points seem petty and cruel and mean, well that's the way the game is played...
1) We've seen the brouhaha over Mrs. Dean, and so far she's come across as humble, beleievable and honorable.
What have you heard about ketchup heiress Ms. Heinz, widow of a Republican?
She will be portrayed as a rich bitch -think soccer moms will relate?- who bitches and moans about enviromentalism and then sought exceptions when it came to her own property in Wyoming, if I recall the Boston Phoenix article from awhile back.
So a hypocrite millionaire environmentalist.
Fair attack? Not necessarily, but it will be leveled.
In the same vein, what about Kerry - the dating years? Think some former flame won't be brought forward to snark or smear? Bet on it. And even someone coming forward to say he was 'great in bed' doesn't help him.
2) The medal toss/Knowledge of war crimes in Viet Nam - this is a double edged sword for Kerry: The toss hurts him with some, his long silence on atrocities he witnessed/knew of hurts him with others.
It's a no-win for Kerry on this.
All Dean has to do to overcome the 'ski bum' thing is say, 'Well, if I had qualified for and agreed to ANG duties, I certainly would have carried them out.'
3) The votes for War on the Iraqi people - This is an 100-lb albatross with the Greens/3rd partiers/normally non-voters.
Look, if Kerry doesn't win it's because he doesn't appeal to these people.
If Dean doesn't win, it's because he didn't appeal to the Democrat enablers and benefactors of kleptocracy and media whoredom, but I think they're less likely to spite Dean and hand the WH to GWB than the necessary voters are likely to be less than sufficiently energized by Kerry.
4) VP - Who's Kerry going to name who is not going to intensify his problems by duplicating a few of them? Even if he got Edwards to run -which I doubt- you have two pro-war on Iraqi people enablers, two PATRIOT war on Americans enablers.
Dean could easily tap Bill Bradley and have a like-minded VP who stood on similar ground with Dean on a lot of issues to their mutual benefit.
Bradley will energize the black vote and endorsements - do you think Edwards will?
5) The Skull & Bones factor - Go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist for bringing this up (but it is a fact) - this stinks to high heaven with anti-elitists! So what if Kerry advocated letting women be admitted to an elitist death/war/power hungry secret society?
Dean booted when he saw blacks & jews discriminated against.
Jimmy Kimmel noted how a profile of Kerry looks similar to that of the New England Patriot logo, but across the country and with people to whom it matters, Kerry might as well have a swastika on his forehead which deflates enthusiasm.
I can't count the number of posts
5) continued...
I can't count the number of posts that say, "I'll hold my nose if I have to..."
Yeah, we'll see if that materializes, but you can already see how that speaks to the motivation of 3rd partiers/normally non-voters.
6) Dean has to tone it down, and he can and will.
Kerry has to turn it up, and it's questionable whether he can do so without being accused of shape-shifting.
---
Gotta go for now but that's just the way I sees it.
Happy Saturday.
"Kerry's not my first, second, or even third choice, but I have to say that I don't blame him (or Clark) for staying away from the AWOL/deserter charge. Remember how the media howled when Dean said that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer? Truth is not a defense with the media whores."
Nor with Kerry or Lieberman who have made the Democrats job harder by pandering to swing voters on this issue by attacking Dean as some kind of fruit loop instead of acknowledging the statement had some legimacy thus capping the issue at the knees.
Kerry's behavior during this episode wasn't helpful in bringing those of us who left his campaign back into the fold. It pandered to the lowest common denominator of the media. We cannot change the tone of politics in this nation or move the country toward a progressive stance if we don't not hold the media accountable. If our leaders play the media's game they lose for us all.
Dean could easily tap Bill Bradley and have a like-minded VP who stood on similar ground with Dean on a lot of issues to their mutual benefit. -- sumwon
Okay. I love Dean and Bradley, but this is impossible. Bradley would make Dean look like the dwarf in a dwarf tossing contest. Totally shallow, but there ya go. Not gonna happen.
frankly0, good post. keep it up, i don't always have the energy.
the hypocrisy and disconnect from regular voters of the "only Dean, never Kerry" crowd is mind-boggling.
I look back at the last six months, and I see Dean who has targeted Bush from the beginning, and I see Kerry (and Gephardt, and Lieberman) who wasted time attacking the other candidates and trying to justify their own feckless enabling of Bush by their votes in congress. Who has tried to move the party forward and who has cowardly fallen into line, too afraid for their political career to stand up to Bush until Dean led the way. Kerry is an opportunist. He never met an opinion that he didn't need a poll to tell him if he had it.
It's nice to see some Kerry supporters for a change.
If the war vote is the biggest issue you have with Kerry, I respect that. Don't vote for him. The fact is, whoever wins has to deal with the situation as it is, not as it could have been.
On the Greens and Independents, we won the popular vote w/o them before and we can do it again. I've yet to see the manifestation of the first-time, indie vote supposedly monopolized by Dean. Kerry did well with those groups in Iowa. We'll see about NH.
In support of mooswan and John D.:
IMO, the fundamental problem with Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and the departed, unlamented Gephardt, is their complicity in the absolute failure of the Democrats to mount ANY opposition to Bush and the Taliban Republicans in Congress. Did I miss the ringing denunciations of tax policy, environmental policy, security policy, etc.? I don't think so, I try to pay close attention. Is there any reason to think their approach would change if they win the Presidency? What good is it to be rid of Bush if Delay can still roll DLC Democratic president? Yes, cabinet and judicial appointments would be better, but we would still essentially be in a defensive crouch, fighting a rearguard action against the neocons, rather than making progress in tax, social, energy and environmental policy.
Dean may be a flawed messenger in many ways, but his organizational approach offers the best chance for regaining control of both Congress and the presidency. Because it does NOT involve sucking up to the corporate money interests, it scares the shit out of the DLC. A good thing, in my book.
Selah.
"If Dean doesn't win, it's because he didn't appeal to the Democrat enablers and benefactors of kleptocracy and media whoredom, but I think they're less likely to spite Dean and hand the WH to GWB than the necessary voters are likely to be less than sufficiently energized by Kerry."
Sumwon, I think you're half right with the above point - I have no doubt that almost all of the Democratic voting base will hold their noses & vote for Kerry if he gets the nomination, even if they can't stand the man (indeed, it makes me laugh when Kerry's fans sob about how mean other Dems are being to poor ol' John K. when almost everyone I've seen critisizing Kerry have said they'll vote for him if they must) - but I don't think you could more wrong about the other half of your point if you tried.
The DLC's primary, number 1 priority is to retain control of the Party, and I fully believe they'd willingly lose (or even throw) an election if it would serve that purpose. Frankly, I think that's what we saw happen in 2000, all the screaming at Ralph Nader notwithstanding, and I don't doubt these bastards would do the same thing again if they had to.
"If the war vote is the biggest issue you have with Kerry, I respect that. Don't vote for him." --Kit
I really wish that was the only problem I had with him. I think it's the overall character issue that voting for the war represents, not solely voting for the war itself. That he was either duped by Bush (which is ghastly pathetic) or that he knew better but voted for it anyway. So to me it's either his judgment is flawed or he hasn't got scruples. Hardly anything to admire in a person.
But if he wins the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for him. And then I'll do anything I can to make sure that the Dean movement continues, with or without Dean. Because it's definitely time for a turnover in the Senate and Congress.
Kerry has never accepted PAC money. He has been a consistent supporter of Campaign Finance - and as a result has a lower rating with the ACLU (50%) than he normally would have because in three seperate votes he voted in favor of restrictions. But whatever.
Kerry has been a champion for the enviroment in ways that few mainstream politicians have. But who cares?
He has a consistently more liberal voting record than Gephardt, Kucinich and even Ted Kennedy. So?
He beat an overwhemingly popular and charismatic Governor (Weld) in a Senate race by fighting harder and smarter than the other guy - and then they went out for drinks after the election. And?
His supporters are rude (?!?!!). He's boring (as opposed to who? The Very Hungry Catapillar?). He voted for something that 65% of the country still supports.
He's never had a whiff of scandal. He's not glib. He's a great one-on-one debator. He's smart, tolerant and has a conscience.
There are some negatives for sure. And I wish he voted against the war - but guess what? We were going anyway!
And for those who think that he'll get crucified for 'waffling' in his support, how do you think he'd be treated if he opposed it? Better?
Finally, how one can blame Iowa voting - which is a show of hands and a ink-written tally - on the devious machnications of Diebold is pretty fucking stupid. And don't give me the 'they've made allegations' bullshit. Anyone can make allegations about anything. Show me someone, somewhere in Iowa who thinks their beloved caucuses are rigged.
sumwon - ok, you've been touting Bill Bradley as a VP candidate to Dean for days. I like Bradley, but what I would like you to answer now is what makes you think Bill Bradley is interested in being a candidate for VP?
I may just be uninformed, but I haven't heard anything publicly out of Bradley since he walked away from the primaries in the last go round. So is there any basis whatsoever to think he'd want to be a VP?
Oooooo, we're annoying frankie-zero. C'mon now everybody, STOP IT!
Selah.
There is a genuine party apparatus that is glorifying in Deans defeat but their feelings about the matter are secondary to the actions of the Iowa electorate. Kerry truly stomped Dean and it was a fair vote. Deans outside status, fair or not, has been muddied by his many weeks at poll-king, his heavyhitter endorsements, and his buckets of cash. Kerry is lucky enough to find himself positioned as the hangdog peacoat abraham lincolnesque figure back from the dead. Its working. He looks pretty haggard though. I hope he doesnt die before november.
Kerry is lucky enough to find himself positioned as the hangdog peacoat abraham lincolnesque figure back from the dead. Its working. He looks pretty haggard though. I hope he doesnt die before november.
leviticus65 | Email | Homepage | 01.24.04 - 4:01 pm
If Kerry continues his winning ways in NH and maybe SC, there will be a clamor to disclose the status and extent of his prostate cancer.
And he does look like death warmed over.
Dang it, I missed where Sumwon said he was taking off before I asked him my question. And I really would like to know if he has any basis for believing that Bill Bradley has the slightest interest in being anyone's running mate.
Maybe next time he's around...
Whether or not Kerry has ever accepted PAC contributions, he's the Wall Street candidate out of the Dems still in the running. Look it up.
As for his win in Iowa, and Dean's poorer than expected showing, it was a caucus. It works differently than a primary, in which there is no horse-trading going on. Edwards owes his second-place showing in Iowa entirely to the horse-trading. Kerry owes his showing to both, yes, voter support - but just as importantly - his status as establishment Democrat candidate. His campaign worked the Iowa Democratic establishment better than the other campaigns. And those local establishment Dems are crucial for working the individual caucus meetings. That's entirely fair, and I agree, these claims about cheating are bogus. But you should also recognize that due to the nature of the caucus, Kerry's support and to a much greater extent, Edwards' support were exagerrated. Had it been a straight primary, we probably would have seen Kerry with a narrow win over Dean with Edwards a ways back in third place.
J - Great post. I have to laugh at how Dean supporters put a halo around the guy. ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE AMBITIOUS OPPORTUNISTS!!! And so what? Who else would slog through the miles of shit they have to endure? So may Dean people see this as a purity test. So let's go all the way: a Kennedy-Harkin ticket. Or better yet: draft Nader and Michael Moore. Then you can all sleep better. And we can watch the first 50-state 70-30 election in history. You say the GOP will murder Kerry as a northeastern liberal..but not Dean? Civil unions? Repeal the ENTIRE tax cut? No target there. Went skiing after a deferment? Great! "Lots of people did," you say. Kerry didn't. I didn't. I wish I did, believe me. But to today's 'net jockeys, that's yesterday's news. Okay, it is. But Kerry's service blunts some of the Rovian bullshit. You've heard him say "The DeLays and Cheneys aren't going to question my patriotism." It's a good line. Dean can say it too. But it won't have any weight. Bottom line: ANY of these guys is a million times preferable to the present occupant. And they all have their bad points. But quit with the war-vote crap, for God's sake. And if not, PLEASE use it against Hillary in 2008 if it comes to that.
A party full of doubting thomases,unless
75% of the bloggers on this site are just masquerading as Democrats. President Kerry is a great candidate and
deserves all of our positive support.
A party full of doubting thomases,unless
75% of the bloggers on this site are just masquerading as Democrats. President Kerry is a great candidate and
deserves all of our positive support.
Laborer
The funniest thing I ever heard. President Kerry, I can't stop laughing.
Dang it, I missed where Sumwon said he was taking off before I asked him my question. And I really would like to know if he has any basis for believing that Bill Bradley has the slightest interest in being anyone's running mate.
Tena
Bradley jogs?
Doesn't he have bad knees? OOps forgot about Buchanan with the knees too bad for VN but took up jogging.
All the front runners are great candidates. I can think of positives for each one of them. I can think of negatives for each one of them - well isn't that special? None of them is the next coming of Christ, and whichever one of them gets elected, he is going to have to fight every step of the way. He is going to have to fight the Repug Congress, the Murdoch slander machine, and all the rest. And anyone who thinks that one rather than another in the WH will be able to make that much difference against Congress and the Wurlitzer is just not being realistic. Nevertheless, one of them will be elected, unless something dire happens between now and then.
Let's face it guys, the best they could come up with against Clinton was his sex life? How pathetic is that, and how pathetic is it that they managed to engineer an impeachment over it? The Puglies are not going down without a huge nasty fight, even after the election.
wack job,
Your name is appropriate. While your congratulating frankly0 for his post towards the "only Dean, never Kerry" voters. The post was geared towards me, I am "only Democratic candidate never Bush" voter.
frankly0
I agree that yes the tactics by Bush won't resonate but the point that I was making is that it would be better that someone made the argument that he will be susceptible to these attacks. Rove and the right wing echo chamber will try to paint him in this category because is most closely associated with the liberal punching bag of right wing radio - Ted Kennedy. I think you also need to go back and check what happened after Kerry made the statement. He apologized. This is the something that Clark and Dean won't do. And Edwards will never have to do. This is what separates them from Kerry. Like I said Kerry will win if he stays on the offensive. But I see him folding in some instances. As long as he doesn't apologize and keeps repeating his stump speech line when attacked. This line is better suited for the general than the primaries. And yes there have been fewer attacks on Kerry. But I don't think you understand my rational. Why do the right wing echo chamber continue to attack Dean, Clark, and Edwards. they know that they are a formidible field. They can't attack Kerry because the this would probably bring forth the candidacy of their least liked opponent - Wes Clark. If they are going to face a war candidate. They would much rather face one that is a MA liberal that is affiliated with ted kennedy than one with no liberal record from the south who is a former NATO commander. My argument is that at this point it would be best to have all four opponents vying for the spot for as long as possible. I initialy thought that deciding early would be best. And everyone thought that the primaries were set up to elect someone early. But in our current political climate things never seem as there are. This also throws a wrench into the planning of Karl Rove. Do you think Rove is ready for the primary season lasting longer than past NH? No. This would do serious damage to whatever his plans were. The art of war the element of surprise and unpredictibility. Know the enemy, know yourself, and victory is never in doubt, not in a hundred battles. I think no matter the case Bush loses. I think the more questions involved in who gets the nomination and the longer the nomination process takes the more press they get. The more likely that Bush will lose. We know the enemy, Rove doesn't know who his enemy is yet. I'm sure he an extensive file on each but the nominee will be a media darling at that point. He won't be able to frame the debate it will already have been framed for him.
Erik - that was a great comment. I've been saying that I find it encouraging that so much attention is being paid to the primaries and the Democratic nominees. Even the bad attention is still attention, and I think you are right - the longer there is a close race in the primaries, the better it is for all of us. Absolutely.
That was Willis Reed.
Bradley jogs?
Doesn't he have bad knees?
Did anyone see Dean parodying himself in his latest stump speech going through that states and the yeeeaaaahhhhh with a much quieter tone. Even had Fox news laughing and complimenting him. The guy they had on from NH made an excellent point that everyone knows who Dean is now. No publicity is bad.
Erik - I completely agree. The people who keep saying Dean's candidacy is dead are nuts. They are all alive and kicking - except of course for Lieberman, who hangs in there for god knows what reason.
The Dallas Morning News ran two incredibly objective to positive front page stories on Dean and his campaign on Friday. I was flabbergasted, but I think they did it because he isn't the front runner anymore. I'm not sure they would have if he had swept Iowa. I really don't think this will hurt Dean. I also think all the front runners will keep running strongly - at least I hope so. It is a very good thing.
The thing that bothers me is that Kerry volunteered for two tours in 'Nam, which raises the distinct possibility that he is crazy.
I suspect a lot of the earnest "progressive, liberal..." posters pushing wedge issues sure to drive Democrats apart are Republicans trying to drive Democrats apart. Seen it before and in remarkably similar ways. They've been doing it for decades. Push polling is child's play for them. I'd suggest how they might be extending it during the Democratic primaries to even more evil effect but they've got paid consultants to figure out that themselves.
Ousting Bush is the only thing worth concentrating on this year. Who the nominee is, is almost a secondary issue.
At the end of the cold war, Kerry advocated scaling back the Central Intelligence Agency, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he complained about a lack of intelligence capability. In the 1980's, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts. In the 1990's, he joined with Republican senators to sponsor proposals to end tenure for public school teachers and allow direct grants to religion-based charities, measures that many Democratic groups opposed.
I have also noticed that Kerry supporters tend to be the most poisonous to other people's preferred candidates, but also have the thinnest skin with regard to criticism of their own.
Everyone who values democracy needs to understand that it doesn't matter who the nominee is: the press will try to destroy them, regardless of their resume, their history, their positions, or anything.
Every candidate needs to focus their fire on Bush. Highlight policy differences with their colleagues, yes, but there's no need to be so snotty about it. And certainly no need to run ads comparing each other with Osama, or suggesting they're in a "spider-hole of denial."
Save the venom for the one who really deserves it.
What makes me think Bradley wants to run?
His endorsement, which wasn't otherwise necessary.
What makes you think Bradley doesn't want to be VP with the shot of running for Pres in 2012?
As for Dean being shorter than Bill...
well, I guess Howard will have to stand on one of those boxes that Rove had dummied up to say 'Made in USA' when in reality it said 'Made in China', huh?
I didn't even bring up the Jew Factor (again, this isn't my criticism, just a forseeable one...)
Dean's wife is Jewish and his kids observe Judaism, but that's no secret and nothing new.
Kerry's recent 'discovery' of his Jewish heritage is, if you believe Kerry on that count, and it's something else he's going to be forced to 'embrace', which brings up the shape-shifter thing again.
It's amazing to me how many people of their own accord mention the 'nose holding' necessity when it comes to Kerry and how many Kerryacs refuse to acknowledge the liability such admissions signify.
What kind of hope is there for a candidate that 25% (more?) of Dems will have to hold their nose for? Hi-fucking-larious if it wasn't so goddamned sad.
Go ahead, pooh-pooh the Skull & Bones liability...
to your partiy's peril.
Kerry is a smug swiss-cheese holed waffle with ketchup.
Think I'm being unfair by saying that?
I'm just being generous and clueing you into what to expect.
sumwon, No, I don't think you're being unfair by saying that. If you said that he was worse that Bush I'd say you were being unrealistic. Helen Thomas got it right the first time, he's the worst president in our lifetimes, certainly. His goal is nothing less than to establish a plutocracy in the United States, Jeb is slated for the job after Georgie can't hold it anymore. That is unless Republicans in the Senate, the Congress, State Houses and especially those whores in black robes don't make him something more than a king.
It's going to be hard enough to keep them from stealing another election. They're getting really good at it. Democracy is at stake and it would stand a better chance with any of the Democrats who might get the nomination than it will with the boy king.
I like almost all the Democrats running but none of them is worth electing Bush.
Sorry, that was me. This happen to anyone else?
Sumwon,
Give up the "swiss cheese holed waffle with ketchup" thing, you've already used that and it was stupid the first time. The irony of this message board and the Atrios site in general is that you've all had it in for Kerry and his supposed mean spirited campaign, but now he'll probably be the nominee and all your crying about him has now become cannon fodder for the REAL enemy Bush and Co. Nice work Atrios!
Robbase, I'd tell you to kiss my ass, but I'm afraid you'd take me up on it.
Tell ya what, I promise I'll only use that line 1/1000 of the times that the media plays the Dean War Cry, okay?
Here's another for your heavy rotation:
What's Kerry's campaign slogan again?
"Turn me on dead man"?
Good luck with that.
Now, re-read what I wrote prior to the line you object to and try responding to that.
Otherwise admit that you're just trying to shit on the parade.
Get on the Crazy Train or stay on the tracks.
Bush or Kerry; skull & bones wins.
http://www.freepressinternationa...l.com/
yale.html [skull & bones stuff]
For an example of the way it's going to go down, see Tacitus' site and the cover of Kerry's book "The New Soldier" that he's posted. It's quite a picture and this is just the beginning. Kerry needs some good writers by the way - and quick!
Sumwon,
Very easy, Newsweek has a national poll out today with Kerry beating Bush one on one. Now go ahead and come up with a reason that those results mean Kerry is unelectable. And Sumwon, is it MY party or OUR party? You certainly don't sound like a progressive. Actually you kinda come across as an anti-semite. Just my opinion though.
One more thing Sumwon,
Only you think that "Skull & Bones" will be an issue. How so? Isn't Jr. a former member? Do you think the voters really give a shit about a club from college days? Maybe it's just me, but I'm willing to believe that something like leading the fight against the drilling in the Arctic Refuge might just cancel that liability out.
Robbase - I don't think Kerry is "unelectable" because unlike many in the Kerry camp who claim the same about Dean, I don't believe in soothsaying.
Kerry may well be "electable" when it comes to winning the nomination, though with his money troubles, I doubt that he can climb that mountain. And if he does, he'll be a sitting duck target for Bush's $200 million from the end of the primaries through the convention, by which point he may well and truly be "unelectable" due to the negative portrayal of him voters have been subjected to for the previous 5 months.
As for "having it in" for Kerry, I can't speak for everyone else, but I've had little use for him since I tried to volunteer a year ago and got the message from his campaign that no peons need apply. They don't need our steenkin' help, you see, because Kerry had Wall Street donors on his side. The rest of us are supposed to be good little consumers and watch the ads Kerry uses the Wall Street money to buy, then go and mark the ballot for him. The final nail in the coffin was when Kerry trumpeted, the day after Saddam's capture, that it proved he had been right to vote for the war - this after several months of co-opting Dr. Dean's message and trying to cast himself as an anti-war candidate.
Would he be worse than Bush? No, of course not, no one would. Is he the best candidate to take Bush on? I don't think so, because of what I've outlined above. Count me as one of those who will have to hold their nose to vote for him should he win the nomination.
Sumwon,
Kerry has taken in over 1 million in internet donations since Monday.
How bout' that Newsweek poll?
It sounds like maybe his camp made a good decision in not letting you volunteer. I've been volunteering for over a year now and was welcomed with enthusiasm. Oh, and I'm definately a peon! Your claim to have been so into Kerry that you volunteered is laughable.
Only you think that "Skull & Bones" will be an issue. How so? Isn't Jr. a former member?
Scenario:
Dean goes on an interview program, and states, "If Kerry is nominated, this will be the first time an American Presidential election will consist of an all-Skull & Bones matchup".
Headlines blare. Pundits call him tinfoil hat. Calls to put Nuts Dean in a mental institution flood the Op-Ed pages. Skull & Bones becomes the Yawp of next week.
You are Joe Sixpack. The media is harping at you to laugh derisively at Dean for invoking Skull & Bones. Would you be the least bit curious, as to what Skull & Bones WAS?
You are high-level Skull & Bones. Are you happy with all this notoriety?
I'm telling you, the first attack on Dean for invoking Skull & Bones (I'd give it five minutes, tops!) defeats itself by outing the sons of bitches. Look for "File Footage" to run on every news package about Dean's "outrageous" comments, with a clip from "The Skulls".
The point is, America may not care. But they can easily be MADE to care. Real fucking easily. I say he should go for it.
Robbase - Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. sumwon didn't make that post.
As for "his camp making a good decision in not letting me volunteer", stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, bozo. I've been the leader of a well-respected non-partisan political group here for the past 5 years; I've worked as a consultant on winning campaigns for state legislature, attorney general, and US Congress; raised over $1 million for 3 separate Dem candidates in one election cycle; have personally directed one winning statewide ballot initiative campaign and worked in an assistant director role on three other successful ones; I know every Democratic officeholder in the legislature and all Democratic state constitutional officers on a first-name basis, as well as the leaders of the AFL-CIO, state teacher's union, NAACP, and various citizens' groups. Obviously, I could have been of no help whatsoever to Kerry's campaign.
You idiot.
I think the Skull and Bones thing IS an issue worth bringing up. I would ask Kerry; "Both you and the president are members of an elitist secret society. How has that membership benefited you in your personal and private life?"
Monday's Wall Street Journal OpEd titled "Conduct Unbecoming" provides a preview of the GOP's approach to denigrate Kerry's patriotism. The article says Kerry joined two anti-war organizations (both financed by Jane Fonda) when he returned from Vietnam, lied about turning in his Vietnam medals in protest, quashed inquiries into Vietname POW/MIA issues, and "disrepects the soldiers."
And worst of all, he's from the "one state that McGovern carried in 1972." The GOP will call him a commie-loving traitor.
In a polity where Saxby Shameless can slime Max Cleland's patriotism and get away with it there is no safety from attack. These guys just make it up and it gets reported as fact--or as "controversy."
pre construction loan pre construction loan pre construction loan. a personal loan with horrible credit a personal loan with horrible credit a personal loan with horrible credit.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
