Quips from A Conversation with John Kerry

Here’s a few quips from “yet another Kerry interview, this one with Roger Simon of U.S. News & World Report, at his blog.”

Roger Simon Column - January 7, 2005

Washington - - I recently had a conversation with former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on his future and the future of his party:

ME: Many are now pointing to the last election and saying that the Democratic party is in deep trouble and needs fundamental change. What do you think?

KERRY: Those naysayers are completely out to lunch. They don't know what they are talking about. On every issue that speaks to the qualities of people's lives, we won and will continue to win.

ME: But it's Democrats who seem to be worrying and saying they no longer know what the party stands for.

KERRY: Our grassroots are very strong and we are very optimistic. It is hogwash that we don't know what we stand for. We stand for children, not tax cuts for wealthy. Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas.

More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=335

Thanks KerryGoddess!

...and FIGHT for seem to be two different things.

edit to add: :eyes:

Too bad they ain't allowed to speak at their own convention--or else leaders who would speak are silenced as "bomb-throwers".

There is a lot of talk lately about Democrats needing "new ideas"--they don't need any damn new ideas, they have gold when they are standing up for what they always stood for instead of echoing a watered-down version of Republican ideas.

We have a winner.

:thumbsup:

Not from the DNC anyway. The talking heads are another matter. Ditto Al Gore. And didn't Kucinich get a slot?

Why do you want to see Democrats fighting amongst themselves? I don't get it, I was cheering during Sharpton's speech... and you were hoping someone would try to shut him up?

:wtf:

so why pick the fight or insinuate so? John Kerry has the utmost respect for Al Sharpton. You are so off base.

nt

despite the party polling over 75% anti-war, not ONE delegate wa allowed to address the issue. Dennis the K acted like he was watching them holding his mother hostage. Medea Benjamin was arrested. Code Pink girls arrested on the floor. They should have been allowed to speak, not caged.

We all know that Kucinich was only one of many Democrats who were totally anti-war who addressed the convention. And your implication that Kucinich didn't have the guts to speak his mind is insulting to him and his supporters. Stick to the truth, and your arguments will be more persuasive.

PS, Medea Benjamin is not a Democrat.

Health care, housing, education, fair taxes, no nuclear weapons, international cooperation, clean environment, equality.

Tell me, which of these did we not stand for this past year?

There is a lot of talk lately about Democrats needing "new ideas"--they don't need any damn new ideas, they have gold when they are standing up for what they always stood for instead of echoing a watered-down version of Republican ideas.

Again, what are you talking about? There is absolutely no relation between your criticism here and Kerry's interview. Where did you get this: there is a lot of talk lately about Democrats needing "new ideas" ??

Don't you think your opinions would be more respected if your criticism was more grounded in reality?

I think that our party tapped very significantly into people's vision for the future. The Republicans didn't have one. Where was their education policy? Where was their
healthcare policy? They are the ones that ought to be worrying!

ME: But it's Democrats who seem to be worrying and saying they no longer know what the party stands for.
KERRY: Our grassroots are very strong and we are very optimistic. It is hogwash that we don't know what we stand for. We stand for children, not tax cuts for wealthy. Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas.

ME: Doesn't the Democratic party have to change its message?
KERRY: What is the Democratic party going to do? The Democratic party stands for a proud
set of principals and values. Service to country, service to community. Do
we not want to stand for that?

All these hand-wringing lamentations aren't going to change what is on
The table to deal with: that the deficit is out of control.

ME: So you are going to continue to say what you said during the campaign.
KERRY: I look forward to going out and continuing this battle.
link

maybe you should listen to what the party leaders are whining about lately.

Are you speaking of something that exists in the real world? Please quote it, link to it, tell us the name of the person who said it or proposed it.

Are you a member of the reality-based community? Prove it by discussing something that is real.

I can do it to if you like.

I'd love to discuss an actual position, issue, political event or personality. So this is your chance to do so.

constitute a personal attack?

And just what do you call picking about every conversation that people try to have here on a positive note about John Kerry?

Seems like you have a personal ax to grind every time someone posts anything in support of Kerry.

and CWebster is well aware what is happening across the country with the Dems: Putting aside the "convention" of last summer where we were only allowed to hero worship Kerry let's look at local scenes. I am aware of two counties out of my 14 county Congressional District that rammed motions through which will allow the officers of the county e-board to dictate who the delegates to sstate convention will vote for on the CD slate. This is not democratic (small "d" intentional). This is power struggle crap and it ain't limited to my CD or my state for that matter.

There are lots of people out there who like to talk of change, few act. Everywhere I look there are "think tanks" and the like being formed. Who's on 'em? People who like to think, talk, hear themselves talk and feel important. Those out raising the funds, growing membership and doing other important grass-roots work (the kind where you might get kinda dirty hands cause it's real work) don't have time for this nonsense.

And it's true, Dems don't need to change direction, they simply need to stand up for what Dems have always stood for: Fairness. Fairness for all humans.

We can thank great thinkers like those at the DLC for teaching our "leadership" to be scared shitless of standing up and announcing "I am a Democrat and here is what I stand for....."

What we need is more hard work, less time wasted kicking around lofty ideals and congratulating ourselves for our perceived brilliance. All I see is a series of not-so-brilliant capitulations in our recent past and that's about to change because those of us who move mountains, instead of talking about moving mountains, are taking over.

Julie

John Kerry DID stand up and speak about those things, but some people were too busy listening to and spouting Rovian talking points.

or to the comment I was replying to, which was:

There is a lot of talk lately about Democrats needing "new ideas"--they don't need any damn new ideas, they have gold when they are standing up for what they always stood for instead of echoing a watered-down version of Republican ideas.

I asked in what way this was related to the Kerry interview that is the subject of the post. It really seems to falsely imply that Kerry said the exact opposite of what he did in fact say. Is there really a lot of talk lately about Democrats needing "new ideas"? Maybe among Republicans, but not among the Democrats that I know. And Kerry specifically rejects that proposition as I showed in the quoted passage. So I just don't get it.

As to the issues you discuss about your CD, you know, it's not easy, but I suspect you already know what you need to do -- take over your county dem organization. It's not an overnight process, it is a long, slow process, with a lot of work involved and probably some mighty boring meetings to attend, etc. But in the end it will be worth doing. I'm trying to do so in my county but it is a struggle to even get the DFA folks motivated to do something besides talk sometimes.

but it was mentioned in the interview and with good reason. I am always hearing talk of change and just about everything else. It's not just the reich-wingers planting the meme, we hear it all the time from our side. Personally I am grateful Kerry didn't jump on that wagon.

The fact remains, the talk must stop and the work must begin.

I agree it's not an overnight process. I've got my county (2 years and unmeasurable hard work) and now set about doing same with my CD (hopefully achieved at our state convention 2/19). My corner of the world must be different than yours though, it's primarily Deanies doing the heavy lifting here. I'm grateful to each and every one of them.

Good luck in your county and if anyone tells you the Dems need to change, give 'em what for.

Julie

I think you've got that backwards... the Republican ideas are watered down version of the Democratic values, in their words and their budget!

What do you suppose centrism is? They are not triangulating with the progressive Left, after all.

A comment by someone. A proposal. A quote. A viewpoint (and the name of the person that holds it) that you disagree with.

(looks at cestpaspossible suspiciously) Y'all must be one o' dem elitist folk. We don't deal in facts 'round these parts.

We jes' go on our gut feelin's. But that ain't good enough for fellers like you. O noooo. Y'all want faaaacts.

(posting - caffeine = a bad thing)

I do love it when those of us who will defend Kerry and other Dems using stuff we've read are called "apologists" by others because what we're saying doesn't fit their perception of whoever. I still remember trying to explain that Kerry was not fabulously rich all his life like Bush was, and being put down, even though what I and others were saying was demonstratable by looking at just one biography. But noooo. Kerry is a rich white guy and has always been thus, regardless of the facts. Blah.

I forgot. Sorry.

Hey, Mr. Possible. (points up) Like this guy.

No facts yet. Just snark.

I know that it can be difficult to enter into an actual dialogue that involves an exchange of ideas, but I think you will find that the payoff is worth the effort.

And I think you are capable of doing so, if you are willing to give it a try.

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

I guess all you really are trying to do is kick the thread. Good job.

:kick:

we all spout and rail against Kerry and perpetuate the Rovian talking points. Would you prefer we all work extra hard to tear down the party some more?

Someone needs to get that we need unity and that unity means standing behind our leaders even if we don't see eye to eye with everything little thing.

the progressive left is the minority in this country!

There are more moderates in America that conservatives or liberals. And FYI, there are plently of very progressive moderates.

But then, we achieve that by adopting a watered-down version of the Right?

Yeah, that really shifts the manufactured consensus.

You keep on repeating the same phrases, but they are meaningless unless you try to show how they connect to the real world.

Who is it that is "adopting a watered-down version of the Right? "

Upon what statements or positions are you basing that charge?

Just what is a watered down version of the right?

There is nothing manufactured about this... expect perhaps in your mind.

Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas.

This is the key -- DEFINE THE VALUES -- force repugs to define theirs

I've been beating this drum for over a year -- when repugs talk about "values" it's all fluff and no stuff. By its self, "values" is a soft mushy cuddly-wuddly word that repugs hold up in front of them like a cute fuzzy teddy bear and everyone goes "awwwwwww...isn't it adorable?...."

Dems need to define what they mean by VALUES and show how their proposals help strengthen VALUES and how repugs are just full of it when it comes to "VALUEING FAMILIES"

but the media suppressed what he was saying.

Take sometime and go through Kerry's website and you'll find it all there. He spoke about our values at rallies, they had umpteen press releases, but they did not get far.

and the message needs to be repeated and repeated again and again

The bushies have the advantage through the propaganda-press censoring and filtering the news -- but there are other ways of getting it out there

Every Dem that takes to a microphone, or stands in front of a camera needs to ask the same question -- "What are the values of the Republican party and how are they supporting those values?"

Just because Kerry couldn't get the message through the censors doesn't mean we have to rollover and play dead

makes me feel like I just drank a cup of coffee.

KERRY: We have to reach out for folks, but not by changing into something else. We have to persuade people of the virtue of what we stand for. People make much of the "life" issue, but we had one question on that in three debates. I welcome the discussion and debate.

is represented by the content-free criticism expressed in this thread, it is a testament to the man that even those who hate him don't have much to say beyond divorced-from-reality sniping.

Where? I haven't seen much anti-Kerry feeling here, only a kind of numbness after he lost the election. That's perfectly natural, yes?

the comments of a poster in this thread. That is easy, I guess, when repeated requests for explanation and dialogue are rebuffed.

There are strong answers in the silence however.

a little uncomfortable. ;-)

to the Dissent Voice spouting Rovian talking points!

When on earth with Dems wake up and realize that spouting this spew does NOT help the Democratic Party!

That article is nothing but bullshit. This is the problem with Democratic party pure and simple! Instead of solidifying behind the candidate instead we attack.

So you think you are better off now with Bush still in office? HAH! Good luck!

to suppress the Democratic turnout.

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

BTW, do you have anything to say? As long as you are posting an out-of-date opinion piece, why don't you add your thoughts to the discussion? What in the piece do you agree or disagree with and why?

We can read the news for ourselves, what we really need, in order to have a dialogue, is some commentary from you, not just a link. What do you think?

I agree with the articles.

I believe in people, and that means I believe in you. You have the capacity to add to the discussion. Please try. You posted a news article. It reported news. It didn't state an opinion. So what do you mean when you say you agree with it? You agree that it happened? OK, but what do you think about it?

You really do have something to offer, I'm sure of it. Please try.

Is that all you can do is quote repub rags and rovian talking points.

Two of us have asked for YOUR opinions. But you don't seem to reply with YOUR own answers.

some of them are based in the reality another poster on this thread is so fond of.

I'm sorry, Kerry wa a bad candidate. He had potential, but listened to too many people. Same thing happened to Gore.

Why perpetuate the argument?

Can people not post here who support Kerry with out a whole raft of flaming?

After all Kerry supporters are entitled to their opinion too.

is used in this thread.

We could make a spreadsheet to graph who's using it the most.
:eyes:

that people confuse the meaning of being the party of dissent. We're supposed to be dissenting the other party not our own.

We wouldn't need dissent. As it is, capitulating dems need to get slapped, or step down.

"KERRY: Our grassroots are very strong and we are very optimistic. It is hogwash that we don't know what we stand for. We stand for children, not tax cuts for wealthy. Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas."

He and Edwards got mainly corporate contributors averaging $1,000 each during their campaigns. That is not very grass roots in my opinion. When he ran out of money, he simply mortgaged his $6M house to put himself back in the race.

Both he and Edwards are good examples of what is wrong with the party. They both voted for the war in Iraq. Why did we have only 12 senators voting against this illegal, immoral war? These are the real Democrats, or at least the ones I would want to represent me.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, ..., voted for it. All I really heard from Kerry was something to the effect that he would have done it differently, or would have gotten more of a coalition of European countries to take part in this war, or that Bush misled him about WMDs. :eyes:

These three politicians were clearly looking out for their own interests and chances in running future presidential campaigns. They chose to ignore the progressive wing of the party that was decidedly against the Iraq war, and knew full well that there was no justification for it.

It really is time to build a party from the grass roots up, because these leaders are not taking us in the right directions, just kinder, gentler Republican directions.

to fight in a perpetual war that Kerry voted for?

Because your post about what will happen years from now is not based on fact.

To me it looks like our military presence will be strong there until the oil runs out. Another 20 or 30 years maybe. Look at the PNAC plan and think of PNAC lite or "progressive internationalism" as Kerry prefers.

Can't you think of any new false attacks?

He and Edwards got mainly corporate contributors averaging $1,000 each during their campaigns.

That is an absolutely false statement. In fact, corporations are prohibited by law from donating to campaigns.

There is a difference. The average donation for these guys was about $1,000 each, and donations that size don't come from grass roots supporters, at least not many.

look at Dean or Kucinich to see what grass roots supporter donations looks like.

In Edwards case, I believe it was mostly from trial lawyers. IIRC, he didn't really disclose the sources until required by law.

What is a corporate contributor? According to my understanding of the English language, that would be a corporation that contributed. What does the phrase mean when you use it?

BTW, where did you get your $1000 average donation figure? I can't find a source for it.

They all are required by law to disclose at the end of each reporting period. Kerry raised millions of dollars from the little people. FYI, you spouting mis-truths here and what exactly is your point.

Do you actually think that people who still support John Kerry will believe this BS? Or do you just like to spout?

Edwards had 56% of donors $2,000+, and 13% of donors under $200.
Gephardt had 53% of donors $2,000+, and 14% of under $200.
Lieberman had 52% of donors $2,000+, and 10% of under $200.
Bush had 49% of donors $2,000+, and 32% of donors under $200.
Kerry had 36% of donors $2,000+, and 31% of donors under $200.
Clark had 35% of donors $2,000+, and 32% of donors under $200.
Dean had 11% of donors $2,000+, and 61% of donors under $200.
Kucinich had 8% of donors $2,000+, and 71% of donors under $200

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2004 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, October 25, 2004. Help! The numbers don't add up...")

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

So, you can see that Edwards is king of contributors, and the top three democrats exceed Bush even, while Kerry and Clark still have an equal number of $2,000 contributors as $200 contributors.

Only Dean and Kucinich reflect grass roots support levels, showing 6 to 12 times the number of $200 contributors as $2,000 contributors.

No average donation is listed on that web page, and the data needed to calculate the average donation ( the total amount raised divided by the total number of donors) is also not available on that web page.


Thank you for confirming what I already believed.

So, the web site has under $200 contributors and $2,000 contributors, but doesn't show the in between contributors. Make a lower bound guess, by assuming that all of the in between donors are at the low end ($200). So, for Kerry, 36% are $2,000+ donors, 31% are $200 donors, with 33% being between $200 and $2,000.

36% x $2,000 = $720
31% x $200 = $62
33% x 200 (in between lower boundary value) = $66

Sum (Average donation) > $848

Taking a more realistic case, let the 33% in between average $500 each, so

36% x $2,000 = $720
31% x $200 = $62
33% x 500 (in between lower boundary value) = $165

Sum (Average donation) > $947

So, you can see how $1,000 is looking pretty close.

Now take Edwards:

Edwards had 56% of donors $2,000+, and 13% of donors under $200. So, again, lowest bound assumes the 31% in betweens are also $200.

56% x $2,000 = $1,120
13% x $200 = $26
31% x 200 (in between lower boundary value) = $62

Sum (Average donation) > $1,208

So, Edward's average donors contribute over $1,208 each.

So, my point is that these are not campaigns funded by the grass roots. They are funded by donors with lots of money.

The information is not available with which to calculate the average donation. Your attempt to obscure this fact by filling in the unknown quantities with fabricated numbers of your own does not enlighten us about anything except for your own credibility.


Then there's this piece of flawed reasoning:

So, the web site has under $200 contributors and $2,000 contributors, but doesn't show the in between contributors. Make a lower bound guess, by assuming that all of the in between donors are at the low end ($200). So, for Kerry, 36% are $2,000+ donors, 31% are $200 donors, with 33% being between $200 and $2,000.

No, the webpage doesn't say that 31% of the donors gave $200, it says that 31% of the total contributions were from donors of $200 or less. So once again, you are using false numbers.

OK, I thought you might see that hole, so let's try it another way.

Let's assume the best "grass roots" case for Kerry and forget about Edwards. The best case is if all of Kerry's <$200 contributors donated $0, and if all of the "in betweens" donated $200, and if all of the >$2,000 donated $2,000. So, redoing the numbers:

36% x $2,000 = $720
31% x $0 = $0
33% x 200 (in between lower boundary value) = $66

Sum (Average donation) > $786

So, you see, it doesn't change the fact that Kerry's supporters were much wealthier than some more "grass roots" candidates.

In reality, it will be quite a bit higher than that, back to my original $1,000 estimate. Why this figure is not part of the published statistics is a good question and it is not easy to get it from Kerry or Edwards campaign info, probably because they did not really want to disclose it. Dean and Kucinich did.

Both he and Edwards represented the corporate wing of the Democratic party quite well, but that is not the direction that I'd like to see it continue in. Hopefully, Dean will change that course, with a little help from his friends.

Phony statistics that aren't based on facts, but on speculation, are worthless.

You don't know the total number of contributors so it is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate an average.

You are grossly mis-informed about John Kerry.

Do you think that Dean. Clark and Kucinich did not take $1000 donations! Hah! Think again. They all did.

Fact is Kerry/Wellstone put the first Clean Money bill on the table. Bet you didn't know that. Kerry would not have opted out of the cap on spending during the primaries, if Dean did not. bet you did not know that either!

You should take your kinder gentler Rovian talking points to a different thread because all you are doing here is blatantly FLAMING!

When the average donation is $100 as opposed to $1,000, it says something about who your constituency is.

Sure there are $2,000 contributors, but for each one that size, there are forty $50 contributors to make the average come out to $100 each. So, you might say in this example the grass roots ratio is 40:1, defining it loosely to be the ratio of under $100 contributors to over $100 contributors.

All of this data was available during the campaign season. Just saying, Kerry is no one to really talk about the grass roots of the party, becasue he doesn't represent them. He represents the corporate eilite constituency

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

Make of it what you will:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

It also doesn't list the total number of donors so it can be divided into the total amount raised to arrive at an average.

What it does say about Kerry's donations:

171,118 contributors gave $200 or more (that's my group, $350)
35,881 gave $2000 or more, who gave 36% of the total
31% came from donors giving less than $200

So my question remains, what was the source for the average donation figure?

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

I didn't make that website up. I'm trying to help, for God's sake.

Take your own damned advice and give it a rest!

is to a link that shows all the candidates for the entire election cycle. It is misrepresentative of the percentages because not all the candidates took donations through out the entire cycle.

I'm repeating myself but you seem to be blinded by the Lord of the Roots... does that mean his hair color is not natural?

the information you can use.

Why are you so obsessed with Dr. Dean?

You do.

Here:

"It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Bush and Kerry, while disagreeing on almost everything else, see eye to eye on Israel policy."



http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/42204/wldkerry.html


This is sort of a fun luv thread on a slow work day, but I fear dredging this all up is having the opposite effect.

:cry:

hoot about the trash you are dredging up.

:cry:

for what you get from BushCo...

I supported Kerry from the start and I believe the in the power of unity. The voice of dissent is supposed to be used against the other party not with in our own. As long people keep attacking our candidates and our politicians from within the party we will continue to lose and be subject to their whims.

To bad some people don't get that. I'd be crying too if I didn't get it.

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

is not the candidates and politicians themsleves but their supporters.

:cry:

So we don't take ourselves quite so seriously. I don't think the zealotry adds to your cause. On the threads you post to bash Dean with quotes out of context and from questionable sources, no one hysterically hits the alarm button to report and have your posts deleted. I can't say it adds to your argument or reflects well on your hearth throb.

and? I don't even agree with two state solution, so I don't agree with any American politician that I know of. So what?

with the tone of your post. Why say "your lordly Dean"? The poster didn't mention Dean, but simply posted a link to opensecrets (which is where I went when trying to find the average contribution figure, as well).

It is easy to get riled up, especially when some are going out of their way to provoke a flame war, but indiscriminately assuming motivations and intentions that the poster does not state, can only exacerbate the problem.

it was someone else who brought Dean into the conversation and than this person was trying to help them. So my mistake for thinking she may have been a Dean supporter and was one who still just enjoys bashing Kerry.

I checked out my cable company with it. (Blue!)

Kerrygoddess, NYgal, don't let one poster who is coming very near trollish behavior poison the well. Someone who would post "I know you are but what am I" is hardly worth even calling a disrupter.

Hell, there's a Kerry pic in MY posts too. But then I'm just a servile flatterer. The work of a sychophant is NEVER done. Le sigh.