This is why I don't want Kerry again for my nominee:

What the hell does Kerry have to lose by standing by his statement that there was probably fraud in the 2004 election that might have cost him the presidency.

This guy has NOTHING to lose and everything to gain for democracy by standing by what was claimed that he said.

His senate seat is in a very liberal state and there is very little chance of him being ousted.
He saw what happened when democrats finally demand answers like Harry Reid's request for a closed door senate session to talk about the faulty material that might have started a war
He's not really the favorite for 2008 - if anything by making the claim he'd probably become the favorite because this topic has been such a hot button issue.

But no, Kerry plays it safe and 'Deny Deny Deny"

This is why Kerry is a loser. He lost because he refused to take a stand about the Swift Boat Slanderers and he's a loser now because he won't stand by the 'claim' about election fraud.

NO MORE KERRY


ttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_Kerry_rebuffs_claim_he_said_1104.html

Senator Kerry rebuffs claim he said election was stolen
John Byrne


A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vehemently denied that the senator had told a popular liberal author and journalist that he believed the 2004 election was "stolen" in response to queries from RAW STORY.

The author, New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller, told Democracy Now the senator had confided in him at a fundraiser Friday, saying he believed the election was stolen after Miller offered Kerry a copy of his new book. Miller said that he was invited to the event by Peggy Kerry, the senator's sister.

they could use him as a distraction if he stated openly. he's biding his time.

I don't particulary want him for pres anymore either. However this is a predictable answer.

always ten steps behind the other side. He didn't get it, I don't believe he's learned and I'm not about to take a chance in 2008 that he has. He thought because bush was a cretin that it would be easier than it was and he underestimated his opponent and the degree he would go to get the job. I don't believe in Kerry anymore. There. That is the crux. I don't believe in him, have faith in him or think he has a snowballs chance in hell.

It is possible that the reporter is either mistaken or lying.

being does, restating the meeting with a bit more dramatic flair because it makes for a more compelling story.

So, I'd guess that Kerry's spokesperson is downplaying the WAY it went because the dramatic version can be unhelpful in the long run, especially with other senators he needs to come on board with the issue, and that Miller overplayed it as almost any human being does in a retelling of any significant meeting.

Personally, I am a bigger fan of Miller's than I am of Jenny Backus. I think she is unnecessarily biting. I would have preferred to hear David Wade respond who is the much better spokesperson for Kerry.

But to play this story as one against the other is very knee-jerkish.

nice ring to it...

I want some fresh blood.

BUt I like Obama!

Why reinvent the wheel each time. Gore likely knows what he did wrong. Why discard that experience.

Or do we want everyone over 40 to head for Carousel and Renew.

All Obama has going for him is youth, charisma, and one term as Senator. I want something more in a president than someone with whom I could have a beer.

Let Obama stew for a term or two and get back to me in 2012 or 2016.

Brilliant.

But I would like to see Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader

We need every Dem. in the Senate we can, to gain and then keep a majority. Our presidential nominee in 2008 should be a governor or from some other outside source -- Clark, Dean, Warner, etc.

Absolutely no senators. They're too important where they are.

We don't need a fellow "aristocrat" Skull-and-Bones Yale type as the nominee of the Democratic Party. I'd like to see someone who knows what labor actually is, not someone who empathizes with me, someone who has been there, nominated for the presidential race.

I'm amazed Kerry did as well as he did in '04 since he came off pretty stiff to me. Sure, he was a much better choice than Bush, but I think he just looked weak and rigid to the "Entertainment Tonight" type voters (that would be people whose sole source of news are programs like ET - like it or not, they vote).

Maybe I'm talking out of school here, but I'm a pretty simple person and that's just the way I see it.

Starts with an H, ends in a y and has a couple of L's in it...

Kerry is so out of touch with how he ought to act as a human being. He's a good man who's just been a politician for too long. I wish him well but I don't want to see him run again.

he would be labeled as a conspiracist. Not a good label for a Senator.

This isn't Nebraska - this is Massachusetts. His seat is safe!

But he may be interested in running for another office.

BTW, my best guess is the main reason Kerry took the time to deny is the fact that Dodd was named.

:shrug:

and so he can't afford to come across as:

a) a flaming liberal

b) a paranoid conspiracy theorist

c) a sore loser

d) all of the above.

I think it would be right of him to stand by his words -- assuming that's what he said -- but I think that he's worried about how it will play across America, not just in his home state.

(although I know technically Gore is from TN, he came across like one)

in person, Al Gore is one of the sweetest, funniest and darling people.

However, you turn that camera on him and he becomes Al Board.

I love Al, though. :)

Sounds awfully familiar. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

this and stand by it.

But he exposes himself as spineless and unprincipled.

Pshaw! John, what the hell are you trying to do? Why are you so afraid? Get some cajones, Buddy. People will like you more for it.

Yes, I know. Too brave, too smart, and too non-white. But a guy can dream.

:cry:

btw, WELCOME TO DU :hi:

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

know a subjects background before jumping to conclusions. There were no silver spoons for JK who was a charity case provided for by his mothers relatives. He actually wore hand me down clothes of his cousins but what the heck, think of him as born with a silver spoon if you like because he had a good education.

about anything John Kerry has to say is way beyond me.

Dear John, There was some really nasty people saying some really nasty things about you during the last campaign. Maybe you missed it while you were out windsurfing, but we all defended you. They said you were a coward, and you didn't deserve the medals you got. But we all defended you, because we all thought you weren't a coward. Now we're not so sure.

Please don't have anything to do with the next election John, Take Donna Brazile and Bob Shrum and just go away. You could spend some of that 15 million you held back from the election.
Thank you, America

It boggles my mind how a small handful of Kerry '08 people here don't understand what a MASSIVE ISSUE the Iraq war will be in the next election.

The commercials would air NON-STOP by the opposition.. "Knowing what you know today, you would still vote to give authority.. yada.. yada.. yada..."

That issue alone is political suicide.

I only hope some day that Kerry '08 supporters realize that "it ain't gonna happen"

and he's gone and backpedaled on that.

unless he flip flops on parties and runs for someone else.

Recommended!

Just because he agrees with you on most issues doesn't mean that he agrees with you on this one.

Who was telling the truth and which one's lying? :cry:

after which Kerry chatted about what he is is doing on the issue.

Miller, who we might want to remember is a Professor and an author, but not a journalist, which is evident because a journalist would have known better, took that exchange and blew it all out of proportion and came out with "Sen. Kerry now says he believes that the election was stolen."

Whether he does or he does or he doesn't, and close friends have said that he at the least suspects, a bit of party chat does not an interview make.

I will be kind to Mr. Miller and say that he is concerned about the fraud, and that led him to try and drag Sen. Kerry out to where Miller thinks he should be, which ain't his call to make, frankly.

The unkind thing would be to say Mr. Miller was trying to sell his new book. I sincerely hope that wasn't it.

Perhaps a combination of the two?

So Miller didn't exactly lie, but Kerry didn't actually say those words. Miller exaggerated and perhaps misrepresented a comment that was open to be interpreted any which way from Sunday.

Which tells me that Miller is not a journalist. I don't know why people are saying he is, and a reputable one. A reputable AUTHOR he may be, but I don't see where he's a journalist. Unless blogs count, mind you.

I'm gonna draw a metaphor for this situation.

I don't know about the rest of you DU ladies, but there were more than a couple fellas I was sweet on when I was younger.

A couple of them would say 'I'll be there at 9:00' or whatever .... and never show. Then have an excuse for why they didn't show ... or argue that they never really SAID 9:00 ... or never really SAID 'I WILL be there' ... and being the doofus teenager I was, I wanted SO DESPERATELY TO BELIEVE, that I'd buy it ... until they did it AGAIN.
And AGAIN.
And AGAIN.

Until it got to a point where - in general - I didn't trust guys, because ... hey ... the weight of their words came to mean nothing.

This is what Kerry has done to himself/any future candidacy.
Again.
He can't be trusted to stand by a statement, a policy, an opinion.
His words mean nothing.

I see a horrible defeat by the GOP - Diebold wouldn't even be necessary - in 2008, if he were the Dem nominee, IMHO.

Too bad people would rather gripe and eat their own, only playing into the hands of * and the GOP.


:boring:

Either way, he shot his wad. Time to move on.

this event. i am not trusting the reporter nor his intent and motive in what he did today. and i know rawstory presents kerry in less than a positive light. i dont trust them at all in being "fair and balanced". so i will have to wait and see what this was about today. but i am not going to just assume second hand info is correct

And in all honesty I have to say this:

Even without Mark weighing in, I figured out a lot of election fraud all on my lonesome. I learned more here, on DU.

If you, John, have some reason NOT to fight for our vote, best of luck to you.

I have my eye on the prize, period.

:kick:

Kerry's been nothing but a mealy-mouthed disappointment. I wanted to believe. Really I did. I campaigned my heart out for the man. But mostly, I'll never forget his last minute plea for money (which I fell for) that would enable him to "be sure" that every vote was counted. The man had the Presidency of the United States stolen out from under his nose, ferchrissake, and didn't even have the balls to keep his word to all of us who worked so hard and fight for it. He didn't do it then and he doesn't have it now. Sad....

kerry would have to be a complete and utter IDIOT to get out in front of this issue. kudos to him for staying out of it. honestly, i cannot believe how democrats can do anything other than celebrate his VICTORY in 2004. to say he should have done something differently is to buy into the banana republican line the kerry lost.

well, he didn't lose, sorry, but kerry WON. and if you honestly believe that kerry won and was robbed, then you have absolutely no business blaming kerry HE did HIS part, he won the damn election!

and anyone thinking that chosing a different candidate will change anything is completely missing the problem.

WE HAD A WINNING CANDIDATE IN JOHN KERRY AND HE WON. HOW WILL CHANGING THE CANDIDATE HELP THE SITUATION???

the problem was not the candidate, the problem was the counting.

do NOT worry about issues, we beat them on every one that matters.
do NOT worry about the candidate, ours are better than theirs hands down.

DO worry about getting winning messages out. buying into banana republican talking points only helps banana republicans.
DO worry about the damn machines. if we can't get a fair counting, nothing else matters.

Thank you!

No, he didn't do his part. He swore up & down that he'd fight to make sure every vote was counted, then he wimped out. He raised money during his campaign on the basis that he'd fight to ensure every vote was counted. Turning tail & running after the election is not "doing his part". This is kind of like how after the election a bunch of DU'ers swore that pres. Kerry was working behind the scenes w/some secret plan & wouldn't let us down. Well, sorry, that never happened. Kerry's still running from the truth. I hope president Kerry does the nation a favor & doesn't run again.

...I can see your point ~~~ makes good senses ~~~~~ http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

With Doofus and the Demon on the other ticket, Kerry should have been able to steamroller the Republicans, and he would have if he had made a convincing case that the average American's life would improve under a Democratic administration.

He won the people who realize that Bushboy is a disaster and never had a chance with the Bush-idolaters, but he didn't convince the cynical 50%, the voters who are disenchanted with both parties. He did nothing to convince the disenchanted that he was a Democrat who understood their concerns and cared about them.

If he had made a case to the disaffected, he would have won in a landslide.

Instead, he gave cliched speeches that aroused more enthusiasm for dumping Bush than for electing him and clothed his tame, timid proposals in wonky position papers. This cautious approach was supposed to be the only way to win.

Right. Let's not make the mistake of timid caution, the approach that seems to say, "This is our position, if it's okay with you."

I do. I can think of a gazillion things he could've done differently. The guy ran a losing campaign, riddled with mistakes and filled with poor decision making, from start to finish. He had maybe one or two high points during his entire campaign....one or two high points in an ocean of low ones.

Also, if you're so positive he won that election, then shouldn't you be jumping all over his case for not fighting for his own victory?

Good gawd, stop it with the Mike Malloy certainties.

Why, oh, why? There are so many repukes to bash, and 2008 is SO far away. Why do we eat our own so often? This is 2005 for heaven's sake. John Kerry is a decent and smart man, who was probably elected President. I thought maybe the Kerry-bashing had stopped, but I see we still jump on every little thing the guy does or doesn't do.

Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, maybe it was off the record, maybe it wasn't. Bottom line is - THAT election is over, you don't see a whole lot of prominent Dems shouting "The election was stolen" from the rooftops, and maybe he's concerned about more than just his senate seat. The mainstream still hasn't picked up on it, most of my family thinks I'M nuts for believing it, and they're all dems. If I were a candidate, or thinking of becoming a candidate, I think I'd still be careful choosing my words about it.

It doesn't matter to the Kerry-bashers, I know, because most of them don't like him anyway, but really, there are so many more productive things to do than look for things to attack a former candidate for. 2008 is a LONG way away, really it is.

With so much happening with the repugnant party, I just can't figure out why this thread is on the greatest page...

edit: typo

:yourock: :hi:

doesn't automatically make him our friend. Zell Miller is a Dem. too, does that mean I have to support him when he stabs our party in the back.

In some ways, a number of Democrats are actually more dangerous to us than the Republicans. We can identify the thugs for what they are but we get skewered if we suggest that some in our own party are betraying us.

You don't have to support ANYBODY, nor do I. I surely do not think Kerry is a "thug", and I don't think he's really at all dangerous to us, either. Everytime the guy says or does ANYTHING the board fills with Kerry-bashing threads, just like after the election, which was a YEAR ago.

And it's not just Kerry, it's whoever the "bad" Dem of the moment is. One day Harry Reid is a simpleton, the next he's a hero, and the same goes for others. I just don't get it.

To infer that Kerry is "dangerous" because he may have made a remark he didn't want publicized at this time, is a bit of stretch in my opinion. Ditto the "thug" reference. And John Kerry is NOT Zell Miller. Kerry is a DEM, he's also a politician. Even decent, honest Democratic politicians can't always save the world with a leap and a bound, and they can't always say what they'd like to say on the record.

I personally feel we should watch the REAL dangerous thugs and criminals - the ones who have power, and are using it to destroy this country. It is really disheartening to log on to DU and find 50 Kerry bashing threads, based on heresay, when so much is going on with the real bad guys.

I used thugs when I meant rethugs or republicans. No, Kerry isn't a thug. I do think he is hurtful to our cause in a similar way the DLC is hurtful to our cause. Zell Miller has actually become less dangerous as it has become more obvious that he is not really on our side. I stopped being convinced that Kerry is on our side one year ago and despite the reassurances from Kerry fans that he really, really is working on this issue, I don't see it and I don't buy it.

Insidiously dangerous.

I still don't think he's dangerous, and I think he's on our side. I don't know if he's really, really working on the issue or not - I'd like to think he is, but who really knows? I don't see the dangerous, or "insidiously dangerous" though, I just don't.

I'm just not sure people signed up for the shit this administration is putting them through, when they became senators and congresspeople. This administration has taken corruption to a whole new level, one I never thought I'd see in this country, for sure, and I bet we don't know the half of it.

I think they're finally going down, and I don't think Kerry is going to do anything to ease their fall, to say the least. I like the guy - I'm not sure fan is the right word, at least not anymore, but I think he's a decent, honest, intelligent guy who doesn't deserve to be the subject of countless bashing threads everytime he does or doesn't do something.

I guess I'd be better off just ignoring the threads, and sticking to the issues that are more important to me. It's tough to do when they're all over the greatest page, though.

:shrug:

He considers Kerry to be a wimp.

He respects the fact that Gore fought all the way to the Supreme Court.

dupe post

Gore took it hard by gaining weight, growing a beard. And I like Gore and not eating my own.

figures, data about the fraudulent elections. They OWE it to this country to tell what they know.

of the 2 faced crooks in DC, He, like most of them have been there to long, anyone that has been there more than 2 yrs is not the solution to our troubles, they're the problem..

Call me: "tired of cliches"

that lady has more spine then all the men in the Senate put together. She can pick who ever she wants to run with her.
:toast:

supporter, an influential one at that. Call him a liar. Not cool, John, not cool at all.

"it's true, officer, the man has no dick"

Why are some so quick to assume that Kerry is the one who is not telling the truth?

LOL

politicians if they played it safe. I think it is more about being smart and being aware of what can be proven and what can not. Frankly, IMO, he would be very foolish to behave as you want him to behave. For me, I want Kerry to run again.

I hope who ever he or she is will sign a pledge to that fact.

Um, I'd like to place an order for a few more "liberal" Senators to completely muck up the works of the Senate........I guess they aren't very ascared of Kerry any more :yoiks:

Letter sent out by John O'Neil to attack Bernie Sanders

John O'Neill
Swift Boat Veteran

As you know, I helped start the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' during the 2004 election for one reason...;I knew from three decades of personal experience that John Kerry was a liar and a fraud who had betrayed the men he served with.
And there was no way I was going sit idly by as John Kerry tried to become our "Commander-in-Chief". Today I am working on a similar mission... A mission to stop the most dangerous liberal in America from winning election to the U.S. Senate. It's a threat that rises to the same level of danger as the idea of John Kerry as President. This new threat I'm talking about is far left Congressman Bernie Sanders. Sanders is as radical as they come. He's much more liberal than even Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton. In fact, he's so far to the Left that he calls himself an "independent" because he thinks Democrats are "too conservative."
--
But that's all about to change.
Because now Bernie Sanders is running for the Senate.
And with the unique rules of the Senate...
..where all it takes is one maverick Senator to really gum up the works, Sanders is about to turn into a dangerous liberal wrecking crew.

He isn't standing by the statement because he didn't make it. He rebuffed it because Miller took the liberty to turn the above into "The Senator now believes that there was fraud in last year's election."

Miller is not a journalist, he is an author and and a professor. That was not an interview, it was party chat that Miller blew all out of proportion. Not saying Miller lied, you will notice, just that he misrepresented.

I know what Kerry has done, so far. He has not ignored the issue, though others have ignored that he is not ignoring the issue. It is not the call of people like Miller as to whether Kerry should be standing in the spotlight or not. And trying to drag him out there is not cool.

I will be kind to Miller and say that his main motivation was the fraud issue, and not selling books. I really hope that was anyway.

As for me, I do hope Kerry decides to run in 2008, but at the moment I'm trying to focus on 2006. So is he, by all indications. His standard line is after 2006 he will see. Right now he is working to get Dems elected around the country.

And so will we. I will be quite amused, after everything, if he doesn't run, because of all the fuss over the mere hint that he is keeping his options open. But then DU will likely just say "Well he must have heard us and decided we were right that he shouldn't run. Yea DU." Bah.

This is why we have primaries. I might work and donate and spend time to support him, (if he runs.)

Nothing here, especially the nuttier comments, have changed my mind about that.

I have not been swayed away from any of the anti arguments. They are too shallow and unsubstantiated.

He's DENIED making the statement in the first place. But you are saying that he "didn't stand by his statement". That's the kind of double-talk that Republicans specialize in.

I'll talk about concerns I might have about Kerry as a potential 2008 Presidential candidate after 2006. Right now, regarding something over two years away, I am trying to stick to a policy of if I don't have something good to say, say nothing at all. At least I wont start threads complaining about specific center left Democrats. I will be negative toward Democrats in general if I am disappointed in our Party, or if I single out an individual I will be positive, or I will talk about issues.

Fair elections is a huge issue, but if I'm going to talk about it, I won't just hang it around Kerry's neck. The whole Party is accountable now regarding this. If Kerry really runs for office again, either for President or for the Senate against another good Democrat, then he's fair game. After the 2006 elections, if Kerry is positioning himself still for 2008, he's fair game then also. Right now I would rather work with and/or push Kerry and other National Democrats on issues that are important to me, than tear them down individually and feed into arguments among us over them. Same goes for Clinton.

November 2006 gives me plenty of time to poke holes in plenty of Democrats in ample time for 2008. I agree with you that this is a huge issue and I care greatly how our potential 2008 nominee handles it.