This is what the NY Post says about Kerry

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/288982631.html?did=288982631&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=KERRY+HITS+POTHOLE+ON+WHITE+HOUSE+ROAD

KERRY HITS POTHOLE ON WHITE HOUSE ROADDeborah Orin. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Feb 13, 2003.  pg. 025
Abstract (Article Summary)

Luckily for , his false answer got gentle treatment from the Globe, which is almost as important as it thinks it is in the key primary state of next-door New Hampshire. The problem is, this isn't the first time Kerry has been less than candid.

A few weeks ago it was revealed that Kerry had Jewish grandparents - grandfather Fritz Kohn changed his name ...
Words in Document: 387


Again I don't believe this crap but certain Kerry supporters think this is a good source. Ask them why?

with something. Feb 13th ?

article that came up on a search. If you don't believe me go to www.nypost.com and search the archives. That is all I did.

But, I believe that was dsc's point. :shrug:

nt

Are we suppose to be rehashing 6 month old garbage ?

that a certain Kerry supporter, with absolutely no criticism from fellow Kerry supporters uses this paper as a source to attack Dean. Why should we believe this paper?

"...sometimes even these guys can descern (sic) the obvious."

:puke:

slug fests. I have never posted anything negative about any of the candidates. I'm saving my energy for Bush.

if you look at my last sentence of my original post you will see my point plainly stated.

The person you are upset about is probably not going to change his mind or his tactics no matter what anyone says.

The question is, when someone throws mud at you, do you get in a mudfight, or take a shower?

I don't really think what is said here at DU has much effect on things -- we may get excited about it but to the wider world it's not even a ripple. So I'll opt for the shower.

Look, I'm not my brother's keeper. Don't hold all Kerry supporters responsible for things an individual person wrote. I've spoken to certain parties more than once, just as I've recommended that people put consistently offensive posters on "ignore," just as I've been clear that even when many Dean supporters talk trash, I speak of them as individuals or a small faction.

Collective punishment is not the answer, dsc. I have great respect for you, and I think this thread is below you. Don't let the negativity get to you. I let it get to me this weekend, but I am really glad I realized it before it got out of hand.

when it comes to politics, party or faction discipline, preventing a public relations or legal disaster, and (ultimately) WINNING...

You ARE your brother's keep, Doc.

Example...say you are agitating for and supporting and working for a particular candidate, like...say...Kerry.

Say that you are working with a local group, campaign staff, or even just with your friends.

Say that someone in that group has some...shady...ties, and uses those ties to garner some needed cash to support your activities...

say that those shady characters were...say...foreign nationals with drug cartel connections (or Red Army, or whatever)....and your friend got a hefty sum of cash, and proposed to use that cash to buy a whole slew of campaign materials, glossy pamphlets, a newspaper add, placards...whatever.

Now, chances are, unless it is REALLY bigtime money, that it would never get noticed...but it could, and if it did, it would be REALLY bad for the campaign and the candidate.

You ARE your brother's keeper.

Party discipline is a must when confronting a better armed, better funded, lockstep cult like the GOP.

Ending quickly in an abrupt cliff into madness.

If I'm not mistaken, you are describing acts that are both illegal and immoral. And I was talking about over-zealous supporters contributing to a generally negative attitude in the forum. Not exactly the same thing, even if you really stretch the logic (and it's pretty obvious that you have).

I have spoken up about this situation several times, while trying to be respectful and discrete (I refuse to mention people by name as a matter of principle). However, I am not going to come to this forum to play constant life guard to every person who happens to ostensibly support the same candidate as myself.

I think that's wonderful!

http://www.apria.com/resources/1,2725,494-9035,00.html

And here is a quick index of refutations about BS stories regarding Kerry:

http://www.eriposte.com/media/bias/media_bias_kerry.htm

Here is Kerry "caught in a lie." You can figure out why the Globe gave him "gentle treatment" and why the Post decided not to.


QUESTION 1: Senator Kerry, why didn’t you answer truthfully ten days ago when you were asked directly if you were sick, given that you were diagnosed with prostate cancer on December 23 and it’s now mid-February?

KERRY: Very simple, Glen. Very simple reason. Because my doctor was away and I thought it was very important for him to be able to be here and be able to explain what was happening, because I hadn’t finally resolved completely what the course of action would be. And finally, because members of my family, most importantly, had not yet been told. This had developed very rapidly in the course of February. I believed that members of my family deserve to learn not reading the newspapers but deserve to learn from me.

Plenty of Dean people who didn't mind putting up the many flattering proDean pieces by Orin. She was always a Rove shill who would turn on ANY Dem when necessary.

This article shows how far she would go to smear Kerry early on. In fact, she did so for months and the articles were posted here gleefully by Deanies.

pieces? Because they are like the Easter Bunny they don't exist. You had no problem with this source when it was used earlier to attack Dean. Fancy that.

I was the one who kept pointing to Orin that she had an agenda that was NOT to be trusted. When she finally hit Dean, I said "I told you so".

And here's a typical attack on Kerry that Deanies gloated over.

>>>>
The best proof of how Howard Dean has spooked the other 2004 Democratic presidential candidates could be found yesterday in the shrill tone of Sen. John Kerry's slashing attack on President Bush, all but painting him as liar-in-chief.
<snip>
Speaking in The Bronx, Kerry sounded as if he was trying to sound just like Dean. In fact, it sounded as if Kerry was kicking himself - hard - for having ever voted for the Iraq war last fall and wishing he'd been a naysayer from the start, like Dean.
<snip>
It also shows that Kerry, an early Democratic front-runner, is now acting as if Dean has taken the lead. And that may well be right. A rival campaign (not Kerry's) says its polling now puts Dean first in Iowa, the first Democratic presidential test.
http://nypost.com/commentary/820.htm

Note that she said Kerry was being shrill in imitation of Dean. This is a negative piece on Kerry (granted) but it is not a positive piece on Dean (which is what I asked for). She says only that Dean is likely in the lead (something she thinks is true) not that he is in any way, shape, or form good. I think Bush is in the lead for the 2004 race right now that doesn't make him good.

for Dean and using him to make Kerry sound like a rube. Get real. Only a biased person can say that Dean is made to look bad here.

It was a dramatic show of how Dean is pulling the Democratic Party hard to the left - throwing red meat to liberal activists, infuriating Bush loyalists and polarizing the electorate.
It also shows that Kerry, an early Democratic front-runner, is now acting as if Dean has taken the lead. And that may well be right. A rival campaign (not Kerry's) says its polling now puts Dean first in Iowa, the first Democratic presidential test.

If Dean were to win Iowa, he could ride momentum to rout Kerry in the New Hampshire primary. The pundit class would consider Kerry a goner after such a scenario because the Massachusetts senator would have lost in his own backyard. No wonder Kerry wants to out-Dean Dean.

But this doesn't make Republicans unhappy. White House press secretary Scott McClellan was happy to blast back at Kerry, painting him as a hypocrite who called for action against Saddam going back to 1998 and is now trying to "rewrite history."

After all, 70 percent of Americans still think going to war with Saddam was the right thing to do, even though there's unease about the ongoing ambushes and soldier deaths.


She uses words like red meat, polarizing, she says the White House wants to run against Dean and uses the word liberal (that would have been paragrah 6 so I didn't use it). If you think that is a positive description of Dean you are a fool, if you don't and you typed what you did anyway you are lying.

In my book.