Which Democrat has faught harder than Kerry since Bush II started?

I am sick and tired of the the comments made toward Kerry on this site. Bush won, Kerry lost, now hold and your head up and quit blaming everything on Kerry. Everytime his name is mentioned, someone has to make some crybaby comment like, "Too Late" or "On that one date he didn't do something I wanted, so screw him".

Everyone does not agree on every issue, so why should our Democratic leaders do everything you want.

Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, and Ted Kennedy are the only other Democrats that have fought as hard as Kerry since the election. No, he's not perfect, but he is on our side. If you'd rather support Nader, or some other party, then leave this site or quit your crying.

If we can't even unite and back those that are with us, then how do we expect to change or win anything?

I object to Kerry's quitting the recount effort at 10 am the next day after the election.

I worked four days a week for months before the election and contributed money, major big-time to Kerry. The least he could have done was have a little consideration for the people who worked to get him elected, and hang in there for the after-election effort.

I think much of that was anger over Bush winning. It was certainly not enough for me to continue to attack Kerry everytime the guys name is mentioned.

I would think that DUers are adult enough to get over that one incident. Like it or not, Kerry did lose the election. Hasn't he made up for that. His actions since the election have been exactly what many on here have been screaming for.

He won it, as all the evidence shows. He simply chose not to fight and take office.

At that point, it wasn't clear at all that bush had "won".

More importantly, it wasn't a simple matter of being one little ol' incident ... it was a clear case of cut and run with no consideration for the people who had worked for him and voted for him.

This is just a suggestion but why not quit the patronizing crap about "I would think that DUers are adult...". It doesn't help you convince anyone of your point.

Not the same. He has never quit. But the '04 election was over when the polls closed on Nov. 2 and for whatever reason we lost, so he did what candidates (good candidates) sometimes have to do -- give an honorable speech and get on with it.

loss. Guess what, we lost. Sorry to break it to ya :eyes:

the fight.

Like, in a chess game- when someone quits, they say "I concede," as in, "There's no point in playing anymore."

has been "giving up the fight" every four years for quite a while now, at least 43 presidents' worth of "giving up the fight".

It's like after Gore, we decided we'd never "give up the fight" again. Did Gore set some kind of standard?

Kerry conceded a bit more slowly than most, and quicker than one guy in recent memory. As much as my heart was cut out of my chest on that day, it was even more inconcievable to me that he try and hang on. I will concede (without giving up the fight, mind you) that an arguement can be made that he could have waited until all the voting was done and the votes counted.

I don't think we could have exposed what we needed to in the span of a week, and I don't think Kerry was going out there without hard evidence, procecutor that he is.

And I don't think Bush was losing this election. No way. There was a Plan B, and C, and D. I read that in an earlier election, when his guy lost, Rove kept working and going to court and recounting until his guy won ultimately. Some might want us to do the same on our side. But I don't want to destroy the democracy to save it. We get enough of that from the Republicans.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I think that regardless of whether or not you consider Nov. 3 a mistake, it's hard to argue that he isn't fighting now. He's all over the damn place like a freakin' Energizer Bunny. I wonder how long he can keep it up. I just hope he's able to be successful on health care and ANWR and whatever else he's fighting for right now. It doesn't seem like we've seen much success lately. It would be nice once in a while.

He wasn't going to win- fair or not.

I just don't think saying that Kerry didn't give up is being honest, though.

Like I said below, I like what Kerry has done since the election. He's been great.

I've noticed Kerry's recent battles and have responded. They tried to contact me twice over the phone but it was right after the bankruptcy vote so I had more to say than I was willing to listen to. However, their ANWR crusade made it to the blogs, and I responded to that.

They are my dream ticket for 2008.

THey should be commended for that, but Kerry has been fighting on the voting rights as well, including being a co-sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act.

Any Dem who failed us that day (almost every Senator) was voting for suicide. Kerry in particular was breaking his central campaign promise by not showing up. If I as a random citizen cared enough to stand outside the Capitol in the cold in my orange parka, couldn't my elected representatives care enough to stand up inside the Capitol and defend my vote? Great that Kerry's finally coming to the party, but only after showing us that the courage of Lieutenant Kerry seems to have been replaced by cowardice. We can not win without political courage and flying fists. We cannot go back in the ring without a proven Boxer.

Those two. There's also Durbin and Waxman and Tubbs-Jones and a few others. Every now and then, Pelosi gets religion, too, but far too infrequently.

But Boxer and Conyers have been absolute standouts. Sure wish we had more like them.

I don't think so.

Kerry had over 260,000 signatures on his Citizen Roll for ANWR.

Boxer just sent out an email that she got 21,000.

So who has more supporters?

"...Everyone does not agree on every issue, so why should our Democratic leaders do everything you want...."

Please modify and ask yourself this:

...Everyone does not agree on every issue, so why should DU MEMBERS do everything you want.


It's called freedom of opinion, thank you.

That's a pretty childish comeback don't you think?

I for one am very ambivalent about Kerry. He is trying on some important issues, but he immediately broke the one campaign promise that mattered: to count every vote. No way I'd vote for him again, though I support a fair amount of what he is doing.

Unrelated question: I see that you, Faye, and others use an Egyptian-esqe eye as your avatar. Is there a special meaning to this?

I joined fairly recently too and didn't really know him, but he was a long time DU'er who recently passed away. His screenname represented an Egyptian God, and I think a lot of DUers have the avatar or sig line of it in his honor.

Why pretend someone challenged your freedom to hold or express your opinion?

Yes, you have the right to hold and express your opinions, but you don't have the right to not have anyone disagree with you.

Byrd also fought hard against Bush's Iraq war, a war that Kerry supports.

If Kerry is the Dem Prez nominee in 2008, I'll vote Green for the first time in my life. Kerry had his chance in 2004 and BLEW IT!!!

denouncing bankruptcy, class action, and SS reform, NOT.

money and volunteers but when they need to act like Dems they change into their Repuke-lite garb.

He is also the only Dem to have voted the Demint amendment on SS, that was even opposed by some Republicans.

So he fights on some subjects, but not on others.

With Byrd, we will also have a Federal Marriage Amendment.

I like Dean a lot, but I find sad that you need to oppose him to Kerry.

and not a true Democrat. A true Democrat does what's best for everyone, not for themselves. Many on here have said that they cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary, Kerry, etc. Well, there is no doubt that voting for a third party canidate is only hurting the Democrats and helping the Republicans.

secretary, which puts me on my DTC's exec committee. I'm an active Dem, but I am not a sheep following the herd. I've had it with Dem candidates only interested in short term gains, that is their own personal short term gains.

Robert Greeleaf, the late AT&T exec and author of the Servant Leader paradigm, said of followers, “followers will be responsive only to able servants who would lead them – but that they will respond. Discriminating and determined servants as followers are as important as servant leaders….” Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, 1977, Paulist Press. When leaders refuse to listen to their followers, it's time for followers to abandon the leaders.

FYI, I don't plan on voting for Joe Lieberman in '06 either. I'll either write in Rachel Corrie's name or vote Green.

but alas that wasn't the amendment voted for.

Kerry doesn't not support Bush's war. He wouldn't even be there. He'd be in Afghanistan instead. He'd have put political and diplomatic pressure on Iraq. He would not have invaded them unless it was a last resort, not the first resort like Bush.

He does, however, support the troops. Hence the military families bill of rights and such.

Even Dean doesn't advocate immediate pullout. Does that mean he "supports" the war as well?

Both have been working and fighting hard. It's not a contest. I'm proud of both of them, as evidenced by my sig picture.

As for 2008, g'head and vote Green if you like. I'd rather not have people supporting the Dem candidate who don't truly support him anyway. The negativity doesn't help.

It didn't hold Bush accountable enough. Dean supported the Biden-Lugar amendment which would have forced Bush to come back to Congress BEFORE launching war. IWR said that Bush had to come back to Congress within 48 hours of launching war. What good was that?

Dean did favor keeping sanctions on Saddam, but wasn't convinced that Bush had made his case for war and Dean continued to beat Bush over the head with Bush lies. Kerry didn't do anything except say that he supported the war but opposed how Bush executed it.

Yes, Dean doesn't support an immediate pullout because he fears a repetition of Afghanistan, post-Russian pullout, but recently Dean admitted that he sees that our presence is fueling the insurgency and wants the troops out as soon as possible. The problem is that Bush and the Neo-cons has put this nation in a catch-22 over the issue of the occupation of Iraq.

but alas it wasn't the one he was given to vote on.

And Dean never had to vote on anything, so we shall never know.

A lot of Democrats have been doing very well.

yet he is doing it. this one especially tells me he is not selling out for 2008

So I guess he didn't sell out then.

Americans oppose drilling in ANWR by a margin of 55%-38%. Yeah, Kerry really went out on a limb on this one. :eyes:

it is re inforcing this label of kerry. yes he did go out on a limb on this one. he is reinforcing this description of himself for the rightwing mouth pieces

Kerry is playing to the dem base, trying to recapture the support he lost due to his premature election capitulation. The right has plenty to tar Kerry with in the (god help us) event that he is the 2008 nominee w/o bringing up popular positions he has held.

The contortions Kerry's fan base will twist themselves into in order to prop him up is beyond me.

something that he believes in and stands up and fights for. that would be the more logical conclusion to draw. unless of course you are just angry at kerry for "his premature election capitulation". which i totally understand and respect your feelings on, having been one on election nite to call the theft. but let it at least be known that is your reason for attitude, not reason

or not

proved that he was not a sell-out. That was the point I addressed, not whether ANWR was an issue he genuinely cared about.

Of course, I am unhappy about Kerry's premature concession. As I see it, there are two possibilities here:
1. Kerry lost fair and square to an absolute moron.
2. The votes were rigged, yet Kerry never said a word about the repub-owned machines prior to the election nor did he challenge the results following the election.

If this isn't enough to make him a piss-poor choice for 2008, I don't know what is.

i just dont conclude the same as you.

i personally feel kerry was a good candidate, he would have made a good president and i am willing ot watch the next four years to see how much he wants the job, and what he is willing ot create

i am open

i can go anyway............

and before.

Kerry has a record on environment that quite old.

So please, dont talk without knowing.

Stand up and say it: "I am proud to be a LIBERAL, proud to base my politics on _real_ morality. The Right is wrong." We can no longer let them use LIBERAL as a dirty word. When I was a boy, "conservative" was a dirty word, and it still is, to me and anybody who thinks for themselves.

because i have seen kerry do a handful of things that are exactly saying this. i think it is a good thing. i think when a dem does something we think is a good thing, we need to acknowledge it, not dismiss it. if we acknowledge and say it is a good thing, maybe they will gain confidence and do it more and more

that is all

i was acknowledging

Kerry worked on this with Wellstone years ago. He initiated the first investigation into Acid Rain back in the 80's. He rewrote the Oceans and Fisheries Act to protect the fish and marinelife. When they said he was the most liberal Senator in the Senate, they didn't make that up. It's true. Sad for those of you who think socialism is liberalism, but that's the way it is.

contibutions to environmentalism and that wasn't my point. Of course, his positions on the Iraq War, trade (gee, aren't those ENVIRONMENTALISTS protesting "free" trade agreements?!), and the 2004 election fraud is why some call him republican-lite. Sad for those of you who think acting like a republican is the same as being a democrat, but that's the way it is.

What Green or Socialist is in Congress doing anything? None.

Yahoo...let's go down to Venezuela and round us up some socialists!!!

Talk about pathetic.

Cross him off my list.

:shrug:

DINO.

it is not that it is a bad idea, the implementation of and finance of is what is the issue

it was used for evil, not good. so inheritantly because kerry voted for this did not make him bad. bush's handling of it is what is making nclb a failure

bush gets in trouble for this. he did it. not kerry. kerry has been yelling about it. is it on the news, nope, but he is yelling as did edwards

I'm being sarcastic for chrissake. But I love how you jump in there to defend Bernie with NCLB.

Trade has benefits too. Kerry always introduced environmental amendments into trade bills and supported labor and human rights legislation in them too. It was always intended that Democrats would raise trade standards as developing countries caught up economically.

The Iraq vote had benefits too. We really needed a UN process to completely disarm and verify disarmament in countries. Over many years, not just a spot check. That's why he voted for that. Just like with NCLB, Bush should have gotten in trouble for saying he had no plan for war when he really did, but Dems went after Dems instead.

i think you and i are saying the same thing

i agree

I didn't realize I wasn't posting to the same poster. :dunce:

Sorry.

People, esp. Republican people, talk as if no one can ever change their mind. If you supported something 10 years ago, and then change your mind and argue against it now, having seen the results, you are somehow a flip flopper.

Actually, that makes you someone who thinks about the issues and reacts to the facts as they are NOW, not 10 years ago (or whenever NAFTA was enacted.)

So, I do wonder what Kerry thinks now about NAFTA. I thought I'd read that he is against it now, having seen the effects, but I couldn't swear by that.

this is where people seem to see differently than i. i understand what kerry was saying

nafta, but have to have rules, boundaries, we all have to have advantage and we have to control corp so they dont fuck everyone

the war, ,.......if we need to, dont see we need to, think we can do it another way, but open

ss......need to work on, but how you are doing is wrong

no child left behind.......we need something for kids, implement this,.....hey wait, you didnt do it like you said you would. it is not working like this

abortion, dont agree and i cant make a law because of religious belief

all this is so simple for me, lol

any change of heart on free trade. Just a thought.

on my list. he talked about it endlessly and people said how boring his speeches were adn msm didnt put them on the news for people to hear.

he talked it, that is how i know what he was thinking

that is so unfair and election time bullshit. why doesnt kerry say anything, as he says it. and the news doesnt put it on. yet they continually whine about kerry not giving his plan. was fuckin point by pointing the friggin plan, msm ignored and said where is the plan

drove me nuts

and all on board saying same shit

The test is real action, not ploys to get email addresses. Like someone in the administration or any Republican senator is going to say Oh, John Kerry, I didn't realize you had three hundred thousand names on your Roll Call. I guess we'll change our position. I am tired of the emails. I am ready for action. (While I was typing I got ANOTHER Kerry email.)

You talk as if the emails were ALL that were going on. They're not. Generally, they're tied to action. Petitions, phone calls and the like. Bills are being presented by Kerry and others. LTTE are being generated by Kerry and by others.

What else would you like to see. I'd like to see positive results, but unless we're willing to help in the fight, we may not see that.

Some I think appreciate the emails and would gripe if no one was trying to stay in touch with them. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. It's easy to make the allegation that they're just after emails. Maybe. But the bun is still in the oven in this regard. We won't know for a while if having a bunch of names on a petition helps. In regard to the health care issue, I think being able to record messages about how one feels about the issue of children's health care was a brilliant idea. And, I must say, I kinda dug the citizen's roll call on the front page of his website last night. That was kinda cool.

It's a way for our voices to be heard. I hope it does some good. I think they're trying to keep the grassroots involved. I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing.

Furthermore, I do hope you are being part of the real action you want to see, and not just spectating in your underwear.

Are you tired of Reid, Clinton, Boxer and Dean as well? I've gotten emails from all of them. Or is it just Kerry's emails that annoy you?

"He is upstaging Boxer, Clinton, Conyers, and all the rest to make up for bertraying us on 1/6, etc." Kerry could rescue children out of a burning building, yet, people here still won't be satisfied. :nopity:

Hey, you asked. :)

i like him

Hey, if nothing else, Kerry's a Senator in a 'safe' blue state. Reid actually has something to lose, but he's still standing up for us.

He's fighting for Democrats AS THOUGH he's more concerned with the principle than his image.

Pretty gutsy. I don't know how you could have left him off your list.

I wish John Kerry a long and productive tenure in the Senate.

He would have made a good president. :cry:

He never stops fighting and he won't until his last breath. Look up any of his speeches over the past 4 years and you will read the words of a true Patriot.

Feingold has been fighting his entire career, not only when it's election time, or the cameras are on him.

He voted AGAINST IWR, against Patriot Act, & is right now on the Senate floor fighting to put responsibility back into the budgeting process, & try to lower the deficit.

I only wish that he fought this hard in Bush's first term. If he had he'd be president today.