Deleted message

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

I did not appreciate the derogatory comments Kerry made about Dean this morning concerning National Security. Kerry is basically making Bush's case, and should refrain from attacking him.

why do Kerry's shots offend you while Dean's shots against Kerry do not?

and Kerrys were not. Dean will raise your taxes 20 times, give me a break. I thought Kerrys performance was poor at best. He did not help him self or the democratic party today. In fact he pissed me off enough that he is no longer my 2nd choice.

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

because he was. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. I saw what I saw, and you can spin it any way you want. Kerry did no one any favor today.

that response is a load of manure.

Why? Because it fails to even pay lip service to the fact that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

:eyes:

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

possibility that irreperable harm will be caused to the claimant.

C'mon. It's an open race. Nobody has won it yet. If Dean could go all critical on everyone's ass when he was the underdog, he can stand to take a little criticism even though his supporters have already deemed him the nominee.

ALL candidates.

Or is that asking too much?

:shrug:

in check.

What I find interesting Don, are some of the posters who claim allegiegence to one candidate at the expense of all others. Hmmmm. If you were the RNC, what better way than to unleash a 1/2 dozen operatves to appear to support one candidate while smearing the rest?

People should ponder if our emotions are being manipulated by a bunch of people who's only real interest is to divide and breed hatred on this board.

I remain undecided, and could be persuaded more readily if posters told us why they were so excited about their candidate instead of being quick-on-the-trigger to shoot down other candidates.

I wish threads like this would appear:

"DEAN KICKS ASS!!! Here's why!"

instead of the relative norm:

"KERRY IS TOAST."

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

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

Dean is clearly not weak on security -- Dean's insight on the Iraq matter was clearly superior; Kerry in contrast is too worried about "toughness" and not enough about American lives. Kerry also claimed Dean wants to raise taxes by "twenty fold" on the middle class. This is absolute bullshit.

If Kerry wants to read GOP talking points on Democratic candidates, he can bite me.

Why are Kerry's shots at Dean so egregious while you voice no similar concern over Dean's shots at Kerry?

Pot, meet kettle.

while Dean's attacks are against Bush and any Democrats who side with Bush (along with the vast majority of the Republican Party).

(I'm speaking only in reference to the invasion of Iraq)

When Kerry calls Dean "soft of defense" he calls **me** "soft on defense", because I agree with Dean on this position.

so if Kerry or anyone criticizes Dean, they are criticizing you?

Do you realize how silly that is?

Kerry is essentially criticizing my position on Iraq ("Soft on defense"). And my position on Iraq is close to the positions of a majority of Democrats.

Btw, Gen. Clark's position on Iraq is close to mine (and Dean's).

Candidates criticize each other. If you support Dean, EXPECT his to be criticized. This notion that what Dean said is right and the other guy wrong is not only unrealistic, it is factually not something that can be established.

Just relax and let your candidate answer the criticisms because if he cannot, he doesn't need the office.

And yes, your guy was pretty damned over the top initially in his criticisms. But I take it that didn't offend you yet when your ox is gored, you cry 'foul!'

those who were defending Bush's policy on the Iraq war.

Anyway, I started out liking Kerry alot. But, then he gores my ox on the selection "Quit crying into your teacups". Then he gores Gore. He's goreing my ox on the invasion of Iraq. He's goreing my political party on Bush's tax cuts. He's taking a poor position on Social Security that will, IMHO, hurt it's long term viability (an income test). He's Dukakis's former Lt. Governor and *is* the stereotypical caraciture of a liberal. And, his campaign manager's comments (does he have anything to talk about other than smarmy comments about Dean?) grate on me and remind me of Bush's campaign folks.

Anyway, I think Kerry has (to put it in his campaign's terms) "peaked" and I'm no longer concerned with the Kerry campaign as being able to defeat Dean in the primary, but am concerned that the Kerry campaign will save money for the Bush campaign and weaken Dean in the general by promoting some of Bush's policies.

so much as questioning the legitimacy of howls of outrage when one takes another to task when the first had been doing that all along.

Black and white is for old movies not political discourse.

nt

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

Kerry on MTP said that he would "roll back tax cuts on the rich" but said Dean would "raise taxes on the working and middle class." Why isn't his "rollback" a raise of taxes on the rich? Call it like it is, either repealing *'s taxes are a rollback or an increase. Cheap shot.

Other than that, I think he was pretty fair regarding the bombardment of questions he had to answer regarding Dean.

unacceptable in any way as either a candidate or a president.


Schoolchum and teammate of FBI's Mueller as well as skull & bones blood brother of the Bushes.

IU think his war record is a fraud just like his medals toss.

I will sound that alarm til the convention.

If it is a Skull vs Skull election I will be hardpressed to see the difference. Maybe I am wrong. But my gut tells me Kerry is BFEE.

So I'm with Dean.

NOW if Kerry and his drones wouyld stop attacking Dean I would be very Happy.


I still prefer Gore to all comers.

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

That is NOT my problem.

Name calling is partilarly typical of Kerry supporters and is one reason I feel his elitist background and affiliations with the Bushes and guys like Mueller make him a likely stealth candidate for the BFEE.

I also feel that Clinton's Mena connection to Bush tainted him (and tainst Hillary)

Giore did not have such nefarious sociopolitical connections to the Bushes like Kerry does still to this day (he is STILL a member of Skull and Bones and so is his top political advisor).

No one has ever debunked the fact that Skull and Bones has its tentacles and members in everything from financing the Nazis to the destabilization of democracies here and abroad. That, my friends, is history. And Kerry's close ties to that history are troubling. His family FINANCED the establishment of this secret order in the 1830's and they have been up to their eyeballs in it ever since.

Call me whatever names you want. I am sure Kerry would.

And that is one reason he deserves to be criticized and denounced and run out of this race. His proBush votes make my case whether or NOT you buy into the political elitism of the Skull-infested shadow government.

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

.

:D

Question critically of all, but remember there is a Huge difference between that and random bash - especially pulling out crap that has been debunked a gazillion times - that is an intentional, close-minded bash.

Moreover commenting on momentum, positives, issues that seem to resonate with likely voters - that information is helpful to all. If Dean- who is doing a wipeup job in sparking and building upon momentum - is not the nominee.... the eventual nominee will benefit a great deal from the organization, efforts and momentum built by Dean.

Likewise if Kerry's performance to day on MTP wins fence-sitters (especially apathetic sometimes nonvoters) out of apathy and into the "I like this guy... I will vote this time"... even if he doesn't win the nomination his performance and campaign (which would lead to more conversions)... the eventual nominee will benefit.

This can be said of all of the candidates. Look at what they do - which strategies work - which issues resonate - look at big picture. The eventual man (or woman) to get the nod to run against bush will be in a better position to do so... because of some of what is learned from these other candidates and their campaigns.

Unless we choose to bloody them and each other to a pulp in the interum, and give the GOP and Rove all sorts of new wedge issues to use.

I'm neutral concerning Kerry. So don't accuse me of being anti-Kerry. He just sounded like a politician to me.

As far as the "enthusiasm" of the Deanies goes. That doesn't impress me either. I was alive at the time and saw that same enthusiasm for McGovern.

And I sure as hell am not impressed with draft clark.

Save it. Okay. :eyes:

and Dean is no McGovern. MCGovern was a good man but his support came mostly fron the young and the left. Nothing wrong with that but it won't win a national election. I am neither old, young, left, or right, but the middle. If your idea's seem right to me I am with you. Dean is in the middle, and always has been. He is drawing support from across the board. Most people don't get it yet, but it is more of a movement then a campaign. Dean will be our next President and he won't let you down. Get ready to take back America!

And I was an HHH delegate who saw McG's steamroller up close and personal. They were zealots. As a group they were sealed off, dismissive, undemocratic, and oblivious of the storm clouds they were creating all around them.

By the Spring of '73 there was nary a one (McGovern zealots) hanging around the local Dem HQ's-doin' the scut work for that Spring's Primary.
Got blown out. Cut N' Ran.

The 1968 Democratic convention saw the party freezing out the Left as though it were some irrelevant freak show. Mayor Daley's cops rioted against Leftist demonstrators, and Hubert Humphrey continued to praise the Vietnam War as "glorious".

1968 saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, who had just won the California primary as a peace candidate. The years from 1968 to 1972 were highly polarized. In 1972, the Left, energized behind McGovern, did to the moderates what the moderates had done to them in 1968. It was a take no prisoners period of time.

Every time I think about Hubert Humphrey, I remember what a huge disappointment he was. At a time when real leadership was needed, he was just a face in the crowd. McGovern at least stuck his neck out. Humphrey was just a plain old politician, nothing to get excited about. He, too, would have lost decisively.

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

honest discourse. I gave my opinion. I'm entitled to do so.

I was honestly hoping that Kerry would have done better than he did. I stated months ago that Kerry would get tagged as a waffler. Well he is and he has no one to blame but himself. Don't get mad at me.


Another thing. You state that we should all be glad that we have Kerry defending our country against bush. Sorry but I don't see it that way. When Kerry had a chance to make a real stand against bush he faltered. I have no doubt that Kerry knew in his heart that bush was untrustworthy and would go full steam ahead to go to war with Iraq without using the prescribed channels.

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

with snide comments. See I can say "PeteNYC gets his facts wrong, waffles, is likely to put cream cheese on his waffles (and what kind of stinking geek does that), and has an overall wimp factor that will prevent him from being elected". I am called on it as a snide comment. I respond, "Its not snide when its true, some people just can't deal with the truth"... and yet I will never come back and deal with the subtance of the snide comments (as in - what is the significance of cream cheese on waffles, by goodness?), instead I will go into circular accusations about you not being able to handle debate.

:shrug:

he volunteered to risk his life for his country

What jingoism. After 30+ years we still have no idea what the Vietnam War was really all about, but it certainly wasn't about defending our country.

If this is what Kerry's supporters are saying about him, they are going to have a tough go of it among hardcore antiwar people like myself. Big deal that he has right wing creds, they mean nothing to me.

And .... let's not forget .... he voted for the war. He's not some impressionable kid who was caught up in the moment. He's a United States Senator who betrayed the trust of the people who elected him.

We dems need to discuss and share information in a rational discourse as much as possible. This way we gather the facts, decide for ourselves and emulate the GOP in establishing a United Front to achieve the goal of getting every Dem possible elected to reverse the damage caused by BushCo.

Internal bickering cost the Democratic Party more than a few vots in the past and will continue to do so unless we stop acting like children on a temper tantrum.

you going to blame that on someone else too?

by true Democrats. If some are being led into this type of discussion by candidate bashing threads, I don't think they realize that the purpose of these threads is to divide. I hope all DU Democrats read your post and think twice before agreeing with these bashers.

made this comment in a NY Times article today, regarding the chances of beating Bush in '04:

"It's going to be tough. You're trying to beat an incumbent who has all this money, and who has got the field all to himself, while all this infighting is going on in the Democratic Party."

Yep, the Republicans are loving all the Democrat infighting.

But I think once a final Democratic candidate has been selected, you will see the party unite behind him.

Anything we say just gives the Right ammunition for the general election. I say we don't speak ill of any fellow Democrats.

I missed the first 15 minutes of MTP- Did Kerry mention the amendment to the Iraq War vote he helped draft? That required * to go back to the UN if the inspections did not work? Which * ignored? Doesn't this fact alone make the war illegal?

I didn't like the way Russert treated Kerry today- stupidly "tough" questions, but I thought he held his own. The "waffling on the Iraq war" crap was repeated by Lieberman today, too. It's BS- Shades of Gore! And it hurts us all. :grr:

A few months ago I got pissed off after Kerry's people misconstrued Dean's statement about not always having the strongest military in the world and declared him unfit to lead, and I started looking through the Congressional Record trying to dig up something Kerry said that we could make an issue out of. I did this for a few minutes and then I couldn't bring myself to do it anymore, because I knew that anything I found would be fodder for the right if Kerry gets the nomination. Not only would I not want to hurt Kerry in the general election, but I would much rather have him as our nominee than Gephardt or Lieberman. The bottom line is, they are rivals because they are fighting for the same wing of the same party, and there is only room for one of them after New Hampshire. But I keep trying to remind myself that if Dean drops out after New Hampshire, I am going to be for Kerry, and so I try not to get too bitter and to remember that Kerry is merely the competition - Bush is the enemy, and we have to keep our eye on the target.

I agree and have not got anything to add to that. :) Nice job, Pete.

The only thing I've heard from the people for years is that the Democrats are weak on defense----poll numbers on this comparing Dems to Repukes aren't even in the same ballpark or the same universe. That would not be anything particularly devestating but then came 9/11 and unlimited lunatic thinking from sea to shining sea. Ya' can't ignore the zillion pound elephant standing in the living room no matter how hard you try. We either match Bush on this issue and trump him or we lose. And we all better start dealing with that reality. The vast, vast majority of Americans are not in a "make love, not war" mode. They may be getting real tired of being in Iraq BUT they are not real tired of wanting to feel safe. If we don't start seeing this campaign '04 through THEIR eyes, we will be crying ours out in our beer come Nov. '04.

speaks the truth?

because some will claim that snide commentary is "truth". Somehow, here (and in much political discourse) even "truth" becomes a subjective term. Odd - huh.

I was hoping that DU could be a place to learn about the candidates in a supportive atmosphere, unfortunately most of the candidate threads are unbearable to read.