Kerry Withdrawal Contest

Kerry Withdrawal Contest
Help him drop out now and avoid humiliation.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, Dec. 5, 2003, at 12:30 AM PT


Kerry Withdrawal Contest: In part for reasons described in the preceding item, Democratic Senator John Kerry, once proclaimed the frontrunner in the press, faces not just defeat but utter humiliation in the New Hampshire primary. Is he really going to soldier on to finish in the single digits and get clobbered by both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, if not one or more other candidates? Shouldn't he save his pride (and possible national political future, if only as a VP candidate) by withdrawing from the race before this harsh popular verdict is rendered? ... But what can Kerry say that isn't even more humiliating than seeing it through? "I realize my wife Teresa needs me more than my country needs me"? That won't cut it. "I've decided to take time out to learn the Web so I can compete in future campaigns" and "I'm entering rehab at an undisclosed location to recover from my vicious Ibogaine habit. I make no excuses" are too trendy. ... Let's harness the power of the Web and help Kerry adviser/speechwriter Robert Shrum with the dirty job that lies ahead for him. A copy of John Glenn: A Memoir to the reader who submits the best cover excuse that will let Sen. Kerry drop out of the presidential race before the voting actually starts while preserving his viability within the system. ... Void where prohibited.... My entry:

"Because Howard Dean chose not to abide by the campaign finance law's limits, it's now clear to me that in order to compete I would have to spend unconscionable amounts of my own money and jeapordize my family's and my children's future. This I will not do. I put my family before any personal ambition. I will dedicate the remainder of my Senate term to promoting a new, better campaign finance system to insure that no serious candidate is ever faced with this choice again."

OK, so Kerry's wife Teresa is fabulously wealthy and the family would be in fine economic shape whatever happens (especially since Teresa can't waste her own assets on his campaign). Come up with a better excuse, then. ... One more: How about the need to recover from a mysterious "motorcycle accident"? It worked for Dylan! ... 2:48 A.M.

Dean, Clark, Hope for Sparks: The more I think about it, a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign has to come with the first N.H. poll showing Clark ahead of Kerry and in second place. It could come any day now. Clark's only three points behind in one poll and only two in another. And Kerry's fading while Clark is rising. ... When the lines cross, several things will happen: 1) The main surviving rationale of Kerry's campaign--"I'm the electable alternative to Dean"--evaporates. It turns out there's a more electable alternative. Kerry's vote asymptotically approaches zero. 2) The #1 versus #2, Dean versus Clark match up will get lots of play in the press because Clark's strengths are Dean's weaknesses, yielding a story line that is simple and compelling: "Peacenik McGovern II versus Electable Military Man. Which will the Democrats Choose?" ... 3) Clark will get a lot of favorable treatment in this new round of coverage--in part because the press feels guilty about giving Dean (as The Note notes) a relatively easy time so far, in part because the press wants a close race. If Clark's ready with an appealing message when the spotlight turns to him, he could give Dean a scare and at least come close enough to winning to get a boost for the post-N.H. primaries. ... P.S.: I flew this scenario by a number of knowledgeable political reporters at a party I was just at, and none of them bought it. So it's not the CW! It's quirky and contrarian! I want big points if it pans out. ... Update: NY Post's Deborah Orin buys it, so it's not that quirky. ... 2:21 A.M.


More http://slate.msn.com/id/2091818/

:hi:

Because believe it or not, I feel no anger right now, only glee :hi:

... and your "glee" does not help your candidate win over supporters he will need if he is the nominee. But, hey, go ahead and gloat ....

Go to Eric Alterman's Altercation for a more balanced view about this.

One suggestion is that Kerry apologize for the Iraqi war vote--I think that's a good idea.

There is time to pull this out for him. I like him and I think that Mary Beth Cahill will be a tremendous asset to his campaign. I still support him. I have for many many years. Let it all play out. I don't want to have regrets that we jumped the gun opnly to find out the person in the lead is not what we think he is. What ever happens I will vote for the demoratic candidate.

this is funny but total flaimbait.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore this thread. I don't like Kaus, and I don't like this approach.

Because this trashing of Kerry has been going on since the Nixon White House and continued through Reagan and Bush and then Scaife. WHY? Because Kerry can damage them and their cronies and has the idealism to do it if he ever attained the White House.

So...why would someone who calls themself a Democrat go after one of the best warriors against government corruption in modern history? What is the purpose?

he has had "the goods" on BFEE since Iran-Contra. That's like 20 years. If he hasn't done anything with it by now I'm not gonna count on any big revelations from a *choke* President Kerry. Now if he were to do some of that "damage" NOW--I would be first in line to say I apologize for calling Kerry a BFEE-war-enabler (to put it mildly). I would be very pleasantly surprised. I would be dreaming though.

without thinking it through. Kerry has been pressing for Bush to send Clinton over to deal with I/P for two years. He just illustrated in his remarks how that issue is beyond partisanship and named names of those who had dealt with it as an issue. By mentioning Baker he gets the attention of conservatives who are dismayed by Boy Bush's policies and how they dropped the ball that even Bush1 had advanced some in his administration.

You either BOTHER to get it or you don't. Kerry was in a room full of people who "got" it. Most said it was one of the greatest foreign policy speeches in recent memory.

Mentioning Mr. "bomb them into the stone age" Jew-hater Baker for....what, exactly?

Yep.

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

dEAN '04....

n/t

Dean n'04...

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

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

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

response there, Mitchum. And your "cold anger" is palpable.


I urge you to show me a thread where I've attacked Kerry. No, I dare you.

Obviously you post this kind of crap merely to start flame wars. Looks like you succeeded.

I would take it a little more seriously,


Heres a link for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=833859&mesg_id=833859

All of these meaningless, unproductive threads need to be locked.

:hi:

Where you been gal? :hi:

Hadn't seen you around lately.

Pounding the pavements for sigs to get Dean on the New York Primary ballot on March 22, 2004! :hi:

:yourock:

Dean '04...America's Leader...

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

It isn't.

Why are Dean supporters so determined to push Kerry out of the race? Certainly there is no motive behind it. :eyes:

1 to go (clark)

And if he's President, you can bet anything that he will.

I cannot believe that you honestly think that Kerry is a warmonger. Those who do the dying in wars very rarely come back ready to leap at another chance.

.

How many did you stop?

Dean wouldn't stand against Reagan and Bush's illegal wars in Central America that Kerry helped expose. He claimed he had "mixed feelings" about them.

Dean was for every war. And he was FOR the Iraq war as per Biden-Lugar.

Dean is far more of a hardliner than Kerry. You don't know the two candidates very thoroughly, imo.

Kondiment King RESPONSIBLE for U.S. & Iraqis deaths. Did you notice??


Dean '04...NOT Kerry... NOT Kerry-like!

And if you think combat veterans are ever eager to go to war, you're crazy. But sometimes, these things happen, as it is still a slightly-mad world we live in.

Try reading AND comprehending, polpilot. Dean may have deceived a lot of people but not those who can read AND comprehend.

Therefore he voted for WAR.

Biden/Lugar would have required UN sanction, involvement, or an ironclad case of imminent threat to the USA.

Nice going, Kerry.

lawmaker in modern history and Dean seals his records to hide his cozy dealings with the Koch brothers (Entergy).

I'll vote for who my politicians are today and the votes they've made RECENTLY, and not who they were 30 years ago when they actually had a spine:)

Kerry's efforts have been consistent throughout the last 30 years. You say it was just Nixon, I say you were asleep during BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning ALL exposed by Kerry.

Kerry wrote a book about the new war on terrorism back in 97. Would have been nice if people in this country actually LISTENED to the brighter intellects with high ideals. Maybe this country would never have known the horrors of 9-11. But, instead they favor the hot rhetoric of faux populists.

and he has not called for its outright repeal, as Dennis Kucinich has.

just 3 days after 9-11 and you look the other way and beat on Kerry for a vote that was 98-1. Your sanctimony is one of the most puzzling things about you because of its obvious inconsistency. It really doesn't fit the greater, more noble picture I have of you. If you were a Kucinich supporter I'd take every hit without question. But, you're not.

Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt are the prowar candidates by virtue of their IWR vote, and continue to be prowar because they oppose an immediate US withdrawal. They also voted for PATRIOT Act. Three strikes and they are OUT. Their poll numbers reflect that!

I'll bet you a cyber dollar, or a cyber beer in The Lounge, that Wes Clark finishes comfortably ahead of Kerry in NH (Dean will win NH). Kerry will drop out after SC.

Dean said on MTP he "tended to agree with the president" when asked about TIPS. A-OK with you.

Dean was for use of force in Iraq as determined by Bush, same provision as IWR. A-OK with you.

Sorry....it doesn't add up. Especially when you add in his centrist record in Vermont and his sucking up to CATO Institute.

Dean '04...

.

Kerry pushed me out of his camp almost a year ago all by himself. Like it or not, everyone could tell just over a year ago that the nomination was HIS TO LOSE, and he did it all on his own. Kerry killed himself, Dean was just there to pick up the pieces.

it sounds like some DU posts. :scared:

Rather shabby treatment for a good Democrat. When did Kerry become this superficial, ambitious monster?

And was there a mention in the above article that someone from the (Murdoch) NY Post joined in the Kaus merriment?

Kaus is a whore - shame on you.

Dean or no Dean.
Trippi or no Trippi.
Netzis or no Netzis.
Meet-up or no Meet-up.

FUCK YOU, BUSH!

your incesant negativity is getting tiresome.

Most Deanieweenies I've read on DU have yet to post anything of interest to anyone other than a Dean apologist. Nothing to add on the Bush Organized Crime Family, 9-11, JFK assassination, etc. It's all Dean and how "wonderful it is to have Dean in my life." If Dean's the DEM nominee, I'll vote for him. What I'm telling you, that's exactly what the turd Rove wants.

Their roots are in SKULL & BONES.
Their agenda is currently implemented by PNAC.
Much of their evil over the years has been committed by JAMES BAKER.

Out of the 9 candidates running for President, only one of them is a member of Skull & Bones. Only one has known PNAC'ers advising his campaign. Only one has mentioned the possibility of appointing James Baker, the man who committed fraud against this entire nation and stole the White House, to his team, should he be elected.

Who is that candidate?

It's not Howard Dean. It's not Wes Clark. It's not even Joe Lieberman.

It's John Forbes Kerry. And I would say he's got some serious explaining to do. Because if he's not in the Bush Criminal Empire himself, he sure as Hell has a lot in common with them.

... or some such. I'ts a small world when you're wealthy.

Regarding Skull & Bones. Yes, I know about Kerry. Some say he's an Illuminati, but, hey, I take Robert Anton Wilson's approach to such things. He believes we each are powerful beings, empowered to use our lives to do good or evil.

Bush must be bad Skull & Bones.

Kerry is good Skull & Bones.

Don't take my word for it, check the record.

Dean wasn't in the elite society. But he did do all he could to preserve his physical health during Vietnam, apart from the risks associated with downhill skiing. That's not what I want in a President.

the right-wing salutes you for buying their story hook, line, and stinker.

Dean in '04!

any of them if they go. This is a hellish thing to do,
running for public office. I personally have respect
for all of them for putting this on their
agenda. Its degrading, wearying and difficult. Their
families pay too.

Kaus is a dimbulb. He's entitled to his opinion but I
am REALLY tired of mocking candidates. This will shake
out soon and some will stay, others go. All of them
deserve props for bringing something to the table,
for helping people clarify who and what they believe
in.

Dean, the guy who prefers to side with the prosecutor because the accused are "guilty 95-percent of the time"? That Dean? The same guy who let four Walmarts into Vermont at the same time he's begging for union support? That Dean? The fellah who got his campaign seed money from the energy companies he helped de-regulate? That Dean? Or are you referring to the Dean who has an "A" rating from the NRA? Cause if you'r talking about that guy, that Dean has all the earmarks of a fucking Republican, which he most certainly resembles.

You know, I would say it's funny, but that little hypocrit Dean is no better than George W Bush. They're both cut from the same priviledged cloth. Men of limits. Men without vision.

Now we are holding up Kaus the oracle of Delphi?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=corn

Can Kerry Get Real?
by David Corn

If a presidential candidate is truly the Real Deal, does he have to repeatedly pronounce himself the Real Deal?

That's the dilemma confronting Senator John Forbes Kerry, who at the start of the pre-primary season was tagged the front-runner among the Democratic contenders. On paper, he looked real. He's a Vietnam War hero who protested that war. He's mostly in sync with Democratic primary voters; he's a liberal who has campaigned fiercely against Bush's environmental rollbacks and his tilted-toward-the-rich tax cuts (though he's also a free trader and once raised questions about affirmative action, while supporting it). He's devoted years of thought and action to foreign policy, and in decades past has courageously crusaded against national security corruption, including the CIA's connection to contra supporters involved with drug dealing. He's a skilled fundraiser (who has long urged campaign finance reform). He is tall, has good hair and presidential initials. But Howard Dean, a nobody governor from Vermont, zoomed past him in the pre-voting indicators: money, poll results, volunteers and buzz. Consequently, much of the media attention devoted to Kerry has focused on the question, What went wrong? The infighting within his bloated campaign attracted as much, if not more, ink and airtime than his policy ideas. And the one policy move that earned notice has been a drag on his campaign. His vote last year to grant George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq--which Kerry cast after raising objections to Bush's unilateralism--was difficult for him to explain succinctly and alienated him from antiwar Democrats who might otherwise have been his natural base. Kerry was the Default Democrat--good credentials, a central-casting nominee--but Dean's passion, evidenced by his antiwar message, trumped Kerry's less showy assets--and Representative Dick Gephardt's passionate embrace of labor issues did the same in the key state of Iowa.

Which brings us--or John Kerry--to the Real Deal. In the aftermath of a late-in-the-game staff shake-up, Kerry began pitching himself as the "Real Deal" candidate who could undo Bush's "raw deal," which favors "powerful interests." So when the Senate passed the Medicare bill, Kerry complained, "By caving in to the special interests, the Senate has given our seniors a raw deal." He called for a "a real world, affordable" prescription drug benefit that would be "a real deal for American seniors." In New Hampshire, he unveiled a "Real Deal" agenda he would move to enact in the first 100 days of a Kerry presidency. That list includes reinstating a five-year ban on lobbying for ex-government officials; offering a "realistic" plan that makes healthcare a right for every American; reversing Bush's assault on the environment; requiring mandatory national service for high school kids; repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; renouncing Bush's policy of pre-emptive war. Kerry promoted his grand scheme with the "Real Deal" bus tour and pledged to make "the Real Deal a reality."

The problem: Kerry is trying too hard to be "real" (riding a motorcycle on to Jay Leno's Tonight set; shooting at pheasants in Iowa). It's an obvious reaction to the criticism that Kerry, not known for exciting the voters, has yet to present an inspiring message or persona to fire up grassroots Democrats (particularly those in New Hampshire, right next door to his home state of Massachusetts). And his Real Deal smacks of the handiwork of Bob Shrum, the master political consultant/guru who often encourages his candidates--like Al Gore in 2000--to push us-versus-them themes. Although Kerry has adopted us-against-them stands over the years, he has not developed a reputation as a populist. Reaching for that mantle now seems, well, a reach--more a calculation than an affirmation.

{snip}

Julie

I know Kerry is trying to be "real" but his message just isn't getting through to the voters and it's not the fault of the media. You can blame the media for a lot of things but not giving Kerry campaign coverage isn't one of them. I've seen him on Hardball, Meet the Press, and many other news shows and I've always found him articulate and knowledgeable. I thought he would be the nominee for certain.

Then Dean happened and he is the real deal.

gets trounced in the election. Would they call themselves Bush enablers?

edit for punctuation.

and not someone in bed with the GOP...

Anger? The Confederate flag? States' Rights? The NRA? The Cato Institute's seal of approval? Preferring a balanced budget to social spending? Exactly what Democratic ideals are being stood up for here? At least Goldwater represented conservatism. If Dean wins the nod, the Democrats get crushed like eggs for nothing at all.

Do you even KNOW his real record? He got high ratings from the CATO Institute for his probusiness deregulating efforts.

You believe his election year conversion to populism? I do not and there are many more who see through his dog and pony show.

Surely you jest. The question is, will Bush be able to hang on to Alaska so he doesn't get swept.

I like Kerry and I hope he wins, but I am fully prepared for the case that Dean wins the nomination and will be our guy against Bush. We all better be prepared to put aside our differences for the common good.

partner. Some of these Deanies just aint cutting it.

Quality work.

flamebait.

I don't see why he's still in the race, he's lost everything already...

He really should leave it up to those who can win it all in the comming months

That's a tad bit premature. We should wait for the results which will be far less left than DU overall before we jump on Kerry's grave.

Another point I tend to get is that Deanies seem to think that even if no Republicans will vote for Dean and the few swing voters will not vote for someone that the media pushes to the far left (EVEN though Bush is extreme far right, the media tries to play him as centrist), aka Dean, and it's Dean and the liberal vote versus Bush and most everyone else...

They tend to think that a blowout loss is better than choosing the right alternative.

Kerry voted for the IWR and Patriot Act, but take a look at the votes, if he votes the other way does it make a damn bit of difference? No because he loses the vote overall anyways. Dean was for the Iraq War with a different nametag on the resolution so he's not this completely anti-war candidate like everyone wants.

Look this is very much like choosing Nader because he's further left than Gore. But by choosing Nader that 5-6% lost Gore quite a few close states that would have made the election a blowout in 2000.

I think Howard Dean is a great voice for the liberal left, but I want to be realistic. We have to vote for a guy who has the legislative record, the military record (in a post 9/11 world, we have no choice, be honest), and seems centrist enough to not polarize the country in the one on one fight with Bush.

Dean has one thing where he seems very much like a fiscal conservative, but that will not get an ounce of play. All the people in the middle will hear the anti-war call and think of how MSGOP and FAUX spin him. And be completely honest with yourself, they'll spin him like a crazed extremist. They already have in many circles.

Kerry could beat Bush on nearly every point and he has enough bipartisan members of his campaign to draw the last bit of swing voters.

Not every liberal loved Al Gore in 2000. He seemed boring, he was a byproduct of a nationally discredited Clinton Presidency, and outrageous stories were made out of the truths he told. Liberals wanted someone further left and voted Green Party. By doing so we got the worst possible alternative.

We might not agree on every candidate but Kerry's record will crush Bush head to head and that's why Republicans salivate over Dean and try to make Kerry seem irrelevant.

In this election we need to get Bush out and there's really no other candidate that can stand up to Bush with the credentials that Kerry has. And look, it's not like the guy hasn't had a progressive agenda in Congress all these years either.

We need to vote with our heads, vote smart, and not vote because someone disagreed with something we were passionately against. Because it blinds us from the other parts of that person's campaign and blinds us from the fact that Completely Left Wing Democrats are about 35% or slightly less of the party. 15% are centrist or moderate. And if we can truly gain their support, rather than have more of them turn into assholes like Zell Miller, and we can draw 5% of the swing, we have the election right there.

Let's stop bitching at each other and be smart here.

Do we want Bush in for another four years because we stood on our anti-war principle so hard that it beat us in an election that is pushed by a pro-war media?

Rp

you might as well quote Karl Rove.

to say how asinine this thread is.
Get off John's back.

Slate.... :grr: The media and the neo-cons are scared of Kerry. When he is in office, he will call them out for their four years of foul shit government. He's done it all his life. Send him a check, a pat on the back, and a vote to let John Kerry know you appreciate what he will do for YOUR country.

Mickey Kaus?! Who gives a shit what that rat-bastard has to say! And I say this as someone who is VERY unenthusiastic about Kerry.

This is flamebait.


DU Moderator