As of this morning, I have no more faith in Kerry.

I'm mad as hell, and if I were old enough to vote in November I'd seriously be considering voting for someone else. This is why:

"We share the same goal of total victory," Kerry declared, addressing an annual convention of the Newspaper Association of America. "And you can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

Is he trying to lose the election? Implying that he would do just as well as Bush* is totally rediculous, because Bush* has been a total failure at the terrorism. Over the past 12 hours I've gone from a big-time Kerry supporter to gagging at the thought of him being our nominee. How can he attack Bush* on this critical issue now? Does he even want to? Has he just conceded the election?

I can no longer defend Kerry against charges that he is almost exactly like Bush*.

"Bushler's Lead" is going to win him the election!?!

:eyes:

How can you think that an administration guided by people like Wolfowitz would be the same as one guided by people like Clark.

Will Marshall does though, and he's a PNAC shitbag traitor, just like Wolfie.

IMO, He is getting some terrible advice

Bush's policies have fostered terrorism and put Americans in much greater danger.

he's trying to overcome the idea that there is a difference between him and Bush as far as the war goes, that the "enemy" is trying to hurt Bush politically.

Especially after the Spanish election. If people get the idea that the "enemy" wants Bush to lose, some of them might vote for Bush just to spite the "enemy."

Kerry has to minimize this.

Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for our endlessly carping young friends.

...fingers crossed this too shall pass, once he picks a strong VP. Let's just say, he's no Howard Dean...
And please don't go on about how Howard lost the first primaries, I know that. He just happens to have the temperament of a bulldog and he's a plain speaker...something that does well in the age of soundbites.

...Bush, Cheney and their mouthpieces are out there saying that if Kerry wins, the terrorists will party. They are saying that in a Kerry Presidency, he'll be "asleep at the wheel". The way to fight that isn't to say, "Hey, we're the same, we'll both fight terrorism". It's to point out the ways that Bush is a FAILURE, and the ways in which you would succeed.

But I've given up thinking that Kerry, the DLC and the DNC even want to win this. To them this is a throw-away election cycle, and they are just hoping to break fundraising records and do some party building. At least that's the only conclusion I can draw. An abbreviated primary season, followed by months between nominee and election, in which the "presumptive nominee" does his best to blur any difference between himself and the most radical right regime in US history...pffft....

only someone with their head in their ass would think that Kerry is trying to blur the lines between him and Bush.

Was Bush at the Women's rally on Friday? Was Nader there?

?

Cocoa (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-25-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

2. he's trying to win the election



he's trying to overcome the idea that there is a difference between him and Bush as far as the war goes, that the "enemy" is trying to hurt Bush politically.

No wonder you like Kerry. You waffle just like him.

their "waffling" line on Kerry is intended for stupid people, not DUers.

camp are concerned. What dipshits.

for saying it?

taxes/jobs/deficit spending; choice; the environment; judicial nominations; and on and on and on.

And besides, he's WRONG.

He has to say he will be BETTER than pResident Shithead on terror, which he will be.

...but, there should be no doubt that he will redirect forces toward international support and pullout. Attacking Kerry is what Neo-con propaganda is designed to incite. Some people fall for it, but not most.

!! BUSH IS GOING TO LOSE !!

Ask yourself, how many democrats have switched to Bush? The answer is zero. Ask how many Moderates have switched from Bush to ABB? The answer is millions. The close race of 2000 will not be repeated.
We should expect a landslide for Kerry.
Bush will not win even Florida.

Dear dwindling Naderites, stop falling into neo-con traps. Nader will not get even 1/8 the voters of 4 years ago.

Nobody can win an election by agreeing with their opponant.

lets explain somethign here,

The Iraq war was a war of choice, but if we just pull out, Iraq will beocme a failed state. IN that sense the terorrists would win.

That does not mean we stay the course, Kerry repeateadly has said that we need to INTERNATIONALIZE the effort, and share the burden of makiing sure that this does not become a failed state

Also from what I have heard from Kerry, he does make a difference between the terrorisms (Yep the Al Qaida type, the type hoping WE CUT AND RUN and let Iraq become another failed state) and Bush seeing this as an excuse to follow the failed PNAC policies.

As you said, you are young, but try to see the nuances and shades of gray in this. Unfortunately this is not as simple as just pulling out... (I wish it was). Keep reading, I suspect you are in for a pleasant suprise when Kerry comes in, assuming Bush has not fully and completely burned all bridges to the World.

Now talking about silly people karen Hugues is going over all the talking points of why we went there... at least she is better at this than most in the RNC, and that makes her very dangerous.

hawks and who have never met any peacemakers so they can't possible have any role models for knowing how to negotiate and they don't have any originality. And most of us can't contribute because we are not CEO's.

Please provide a link to the story referred. It seems that the quotation you cite is taken out of context.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-636907,curpg-1.cms

I understand that he can't exactly say that Bush* is letting the terrorists win, but it's that "it doesn't matter who wins the election" line that really pisses me off.

The Times of India. Not that is a bad source per se but...

Secondly, a war on terrorism can be fought and won without resort to the asinine military methods currently advocated. Perhaps this is what Kerry is referring to?

BTW, thanks for the link.

most of the country feel we have to stay. I am in the minority I suppose because I feel we should get out, stay out, and let the Iraqis govern themselves however they want. It is their country and they did not ask us to invade.

Are you saying you want a President that won't do anything against terrorism?

This is how I interpret your post. Please correct me If I am wrong.

More importantly, he just conceeded a very important issue. If he tries to say he'll do things better, then Bush* can just come out and say "well Kerry said it doesn't matter who wins, so vote for me because I'm a known quantity". If someone asked me "what's the dumbest thing Kerry could say?" I wouldn't have been able to think up something so stupid as this.

Is there something wrong with that idea. If they won't win it, why shouldn't we just vote for Bush?

...then the answer would be "Yes".

But Kerry isn't doing that. Instead, he's comparing himself to Junior and saying there's basically no difference.

Which is true enough, given that Kerry's foreign policy is coming from the same group of traitorous fascists. But it isn't going to win him any votes. Because those who think Bush has done a good job are going to vote for him anyway. And those who think he's doing a shitty job aren't going to want Kerry to do the same shitty job. If Kerry can't take on Bush, then fuck him. Let's get a nominee who will!

And exactly how would you do that per se? There is not going to be a brokered convention and no one outside of the two major parties is going to garner enough votes.So, other than venting your spleen, do you have a plan?

Thanks.

Bush has one issue. The economy sucks, the deficit is growing, foreign affairs are a mess with no end in sight, and every bit of legislation Bush has signed has gone against what the people want. Bush's only perceived victory is terrorism.

Kerry could spend all campaign trying to convince people that every news report and every RNC-initiated email they have heard is wrong, and that Bush has blown it on terrorism, but why? Bush has blown it on everything.

Bush wants the issue to be terrorism. Kerry has just said, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, "Whatever. Now, let's talk about everything you've failed on."

That's what will win. That's the message Bush fears the most. And it is the one Bush has no defense on.

When Bush is on the ropes because of all his failures, when he's sinking to the mat and he raises his feeble hand and squeaks "Wait. But I beat terrorism," THEN Kerry can launch his final flurry to dispatch this foul demon to Hell. But you don't start off by running into the opponents strengths. You dance around them, using your strengths to weaken them, then you deliver the knockout. Or rather, you go for the points, because there are never knockouts in a presidential race, they are all decided on points.

takes him off the ropes and does nothing to sweep itoff the table.

He said WE would win the war on terrorism. He simply ducked a roundhouse so he could keep fighting.

My 401k is up 40% since post 911 lows, my both kids have found
good jobs after graduating from college, and our house value has
gone up from $185,000 to $290,000 in 4 years.

My point is, if Kerry is smart, he should NOT make the economy
an issue. It looks like a loser in 2004. Kerry should instead
concentrate on universal healthcare, healthcare cost containment,
environmental issues such as global warming & water & air quality,
job creation and wage improvment for the less skilled workers,
and getting out of foreign wars.

threaten us. That would be a very big difference between him and Bush.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on forcing women to have babies? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on the environment? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on health care? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on capital punishment? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on gun control? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on school vouchers? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on Star Wars? No.

Do Bush and Kerry agree on civil unions? No.

The "they're exactly the same" shit isn't going to fly in 2004.

Oh, but Kerry doesn't support international terrorism, so he's Bush lite. What is wrong with this picture?

He needs to point out that the terrorists are WINNING right now!!! If he won't draw a distinction on this issue, which is very important to the voters he is trying to capture, then why should anyone vote for him and not Bush*. That was a terrible, stupid thing to say. I'm more pissed off at the fact it was a bad campaign move than anything else.

Kerry doesn't support internationalism terrorism. Whup de doo.

? Instead he just said Bush is winning.

Literally.

International terrorism is exactly what he's supporting.

Kerry will never be seen as strong as Bush on security issues. It's absurd, but it's true. I'm a Clarkie, but in the past week the logic of Wes as VP has grown immensely. For one thing, there is all this focus on Kerry's war record. What a joke! But who better to defuse the issue than Wes? Who did so brilliantly on Wolf Blitzer the other day.

Bush and Cheney are chicken hawk jokes who still don't know what the fuck they've gotten into in Iraq. Clark can play offense on 9/11 and Iraq and divert attention while Kerry plays "I'm presidential."

Clark for VP, folks. Other than that, the only person I can live with Edwards, who helps immensely on domestic issues but isn't worth a damn on national security and defense. Kerry more than holds his own domestically, but, as a Democrat, needs help on the war and on anti-terrorism, which looks more and more to be the defining issues of this campaign.

I don't see what you are upset about from that quote. The Republicans are saying he's soft on terrorism. He's saying he's not. He's not saying Bush is doing a good job. He's been saying the opposite every day since he began campaigning. He's been more agressive in his attacks on Bush than I've ever seen a candidate be. Usually they are polite and pretend respect even if they have none, but he's going right at Bush. If anything, this comment is his way of saying that even though he has little in common with Bush, it doesn't mean he will be soft on terror.

It's still the regular season. Kerry's giving long speeches, and the media is covering sound bites. Kerry is saying and doing it all right not. Do you realize how impressive it is that the polls show a real race right now, when 99% of what America has been hearing has been pro-Bush? Clinton at this point in the race in 92 was in third, behind Bush and Perot, and the media was literally telling people that the Democratic Party had gone the way of the Whigs.

The playoffs don't even start until the second convention is over.

...say that under a second Bush term, the terrorists win. Bush policies recruit new terrorists. Bush policies alienate our allies, who are needed in an international effort to fight terrorism. Bush is buddy-buddy with Saudi wahabists that fund terrorism. Bush had his pants around his ankles whanking to photos of Saddam Hussein while terrorists planned a hit on this nation.

There is a real country at there, and making such assinine statements would not only alienate voters, but would encourage actual terrorists (and yes, they do exist, as we should all remember).

Bush is doing everything wrong, and is alienating the world, and is fomenting more hatred that will lead to terrorism, and those are issues Kerry has been raising, and I'm sure will continue to raise. But to flat out proclaim that a vote for Bush is a victory for terrorists is irresponsible in the extreme. The last thing we need is a candidate who actually makes Bush look responsible.

This is too weird. One guy who admits he's not old enough to vote misunderstands something Kerry says, and people agree with him? I guess we can start focussing on 2008 now.

...that it is irresponsible of Bush/Cheney to do so? Rice, Bush, Cheney - all have said that if Kerry wins, the terrorists party. Why not point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of such a thing?

Jesus Christ, you'd think from these reactions that Kerry just said he was voting for Bush. He's been slamming Bush left and right, front and back, since he wrapped up the nomination. He's quoted in one sentence here. One! This isn't his entire statement on the matter, and he's been quite clear in his condemnation of Bush's foreign policy all along. He's flat out said all along that Bush's foreign policy foments terrorism, and helps recruit more terrorists. This statement doesn't negate that. Hell, it doesn't even say will defeat terrorism UNDER BUSH if Bush wins, he just says we'll ultimately win.

Sorry to go off. On your specific question, Kerry has been saying all along that Bush's policies are making us less safe, and are strengthening the terrorists, so I don't get why he's being blamed here for saying that we will eventually win against terrorism even if Bush is elected. And why not point out the hypocrisy of the thing? because name calling always backfires-- you can sling mud and slander, but you have to do it with "facts," (or psuedo facts), not with name calling. Kerry wins that argument by appearing more statesmanlike than W. THAT's why he does it.

winning the war on terror.

Read the statement, and combine it with everything Kerry has said this month alone. He's slammed Bush often enough. He's just negating the subject, he's not praising Bush.

"This is too weird. One guy who admits he's not old enough to vote misunderstands something Kerry says, and people agree with him? I guess we can start focussing on 2008 now."


...or maybe we could start agitating to raise the voting age to--say--35 or 40? :evilgrin:

than deliberately misrepresenting what I said, I guess.

so people vote for Kerry and not Bush. Besides Bush is losing the war on terror.

Bush is a FAILURE in the war on terror. That is CORRECT.

He's been saying Bush is creating more anger and helping terrorism. He has said Bush has made us less safe and not more safe. So, if as your post suggests, that's all he needs to say to win, then he's said it, and he should win.

But telling the American people and any terror recruiter that America is so uncommitted that we will only defeat terrorism (whatever the hell that means) if he wins would be irresponsible. And stupid. And the voters wouldn't buy it, anyway. This way he looks more responsible, more statesmanlike, and he can still criticize Bush to his heart's content with Bush being able to claim that he's aiding terrorism by giving terrorists false hopes.

He's doing it all exactly right, and this surprises me, because I was saying before he won the nomination that he wouldn't be able to do it. Kerry's brilliant. Let's watch him work instead of giving Republicans and assist by shredding our own guy for them. When he makes a real policy blunder, we can shred him. But buying the media's representation of one quote out of context gives Bush the victory a lot more than anything that Kerry is even being accused of doing, much less actually doing.

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

We need to get Kerry's attention now since if we do he will never have any power to make changes in the future.

/<sarcasm off>

:-)

:toast:

:-)

Listen less to campaign rhetoric than you do his record of fighting against the last quagmire the Pentagon lied us into.

Mewling about campaign rhetoric on these forums is beyond old. We know what Bush is and what he will do to us. If you want to survive, if you don't want some nutbag causing Armageddon because he doesn't know the difference between fiction and reality, vote for Kerry.

30 years is a long time, people can change. It is possible that Kerry grew out of opposing senseless wars.

and I apologize for bringing it up, but it's just too funny to pass up.

I don't think Kerry will ever grow out of opposing senseless wars. To him this war is not senseless. If he grew out of opposing senseless wars, that means he is NOW for senseless wars.

((((HUGz)))) 'cause I know your heart is in the right place,




sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/


(EDITED to change "aspologize" to "apologize")

Kerry in 1970 seems to be a far cry from Kerry in 2002-2004. If we don't go by a candidate's recent statements, then what the hell ARE we supposed to listen to? Statements he made 30 years ago before he was a politician?

Just because Bush is a nutbag does not give Kerry license to blur the line between the two and still expect Joe Liberal to meekly concur. I think this topic is a really important one and I applaud Rockymountaindem for being so perceptive. As long as young people like Rocky are able to ask the tough questions that us older ones avoid, I see hope for the planet yet.

:kick:

Bush HAS been a total failure at terrorism, and here is Kerry lining himself up with it. I am so disappointed. He has indeed conceded the election (although I was never under any illusion the BushBots would give up power under any circumstances). Maybe the reason so few senators have ever been elected president is that they are captives of the Beltway mentality. Kerry is adrift.

Yeah, ok, Kerry's isn't a lot of people's perfect candidate. Yeah, maybe he says some things in his speeches that you disagree with. Maybe you think there are aspects of his campaign that need to be changed. so.... WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?!?!?

There is a whole lot of ##$%@ going on here that's so defeatist and unhelpful. Do you want to see Bush win in November? OF COURSE NOT. So DO something. Griping here feels nice, and accomplishes exactly shit. Call or email Kerry, or his campaign. Discuss things with other people in real life. Open peoples' eyes. All talk an no walk gets us nowhere.

Think about this. If you convince 1 person today of a good reason not to vote for Bush, or at least to really start questioning, and they tell one person tomorrow, and that one person tells one more person... and on.

And if you tell another, different person tomorrow, and the same occurs.

And if you tell another person the day after that, and the same occurs.

If you do this every day, that's a potential of 18,528 people before the election (192 days from now). That's a heck of a lot of people! I know that this is an 'ideal', and far from truth, but think about the potential! Think about if you told 2 people every day!

Let's assume DU has a few thousand active members... if we all did this? 3000 * 18,528 = 55 million people. Can you imagine?

I know, this is optimism in the extreme, but get out there and talk to someone today! Even if it's not someone you usually talk politics with. Especially if it's not someone you usually talk politics with. Drop facts at the grocery store. Talk to your waiter. Gripe at the gas station. Plant seeds of curiosity in people, even if that stems from anger. Bring things up on non-political chat boards, if you can get away with it. The fight to bring knowledge to people is far from over.

</soapbox>

I pity the poor staffer who gets to listen to me.

Is it true that Chris Heinz is a member of DU? I hope he reads all this and the other threads on the same topic and discusses it with the Senator.

and he also knows du does not represent all of america and not even the democratic party itself. that's why kerry lost all du polls on which primary candidate for president yet ended up winning the primary election. and i'm sure he isn't going to waste any time talking to kerry about this thread. there are much more important things to do, such as win the national election.

..

just because he doesn't say what you want doesn't mean he isn't doing anything.

slugfest.

Kerry/Gephardt/Torricelli assassination of Dean?

.

ancient revisionist history.Dean supports Kerry and his people should too.But then, as a DUer pointed out . many of the Deaniacs weren't Democrats to begin with.What alternative is there to Kerry, unless one prefers Bush?

I miss Dean.

He took no crap.

He attacked relentlessly.

He was MEAN.

Kerry cannot be defensive on anything.

He must fire the shots.

He has loads of ammunition to attack. Attack first.

Will he show guts in first debate and do this--

When Moderator introduces Bush, Kerry should pause and say "Is this all? Where is the Vice President?"

Show meanness. D will love it. R will go bonkers.

Imagine redness on necks of Addict Mush Dimbaugh and others.

getting really disgusted with Kerry. And I stod by hm for a long time.

n/t

that would have me on the floor laughing my ass off,

d

Honestly, it seems like there are more threads griping about the Democrats here than there are at Freak Republic.

Democrats are perfect! :party: :D :beer: :party:

I think that's where I last heard it.

Second Grade recess. Someone was bitching about not being picked for dodge ball. And then the two guys choosing sides said in unison "We're perfect, so shut up."

I altered it a little.

After all it's not like Democrats have been stopping them from advancing their agenda.

Kerry's been trashing Bush on terrorism for the past 6 months, and he comes out and gives a rallying cry against Al-Queda and you're jumping ship? I don't see anywhere in that passage where he's saying "Bush's tactics have worked," he's saying that the fight on terrorism will continue no matter who is president. He's not saying Bush will win, he's saying America will eventually win the war on terror.

By simply being against Bush, Kerry will maybe get 45% of the vote. A good percentage, but still 5%+ short of a mandate and victory.

Kerry needs to not only challenge Shrub's execution of this so-called "war on terror", but provide an ALTERNATIVE to it-- NOT just a continuation of the current failure with a new leader at the top of the pyramid.

Turning the so-called "war on terror" into a Democratic war WILL NOT solve the problems we're facing. Continuing Shrub's failed policies of "bomb first, rebuild eventually" WILL NOT make us any safer in the world.

Kerry has a real chance to change the course of this country. The extremism of the Shrub administration has pissed off EVERYONE from the "loony left" to the Taliban-esque right. As the body count climbs into quadruple digits, more and more people will become dissatisfied with the so-called "war".

If Kerry shows some REAL leadership on this issue, and STANDS UP in the face of the BFEE Lie Machine, he'll go down in history as the best president since FDR. But, if he continues to echo the ShrubCo position, "but not as much", he'll be another LBJ.

taxes/jobs/deficit spending; choice; judicial nominations; the environment, and on and on and on. He did fuck up when he supported the resolution giving Bush the power to use force, without security council authorization, to enforce UN resolutions. That was a big boo-boo. Kerry ought to disavow that position, forthwith.

Kerry needs to make it very clear that his approach to the war against terrorists will be quite different than the dishonest, deceptive one we've gotten from Bush and his pals. Bush has not fought a war against terrorists. He has used the September 11 attacks as a pretext for a colonial war in Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism.

The Los Angeles Times poll published late last week shows that 57% of Americans believe that Saddam was providing substantive support to al Qaida and that he had a biochemical arsenal; the poll also shows that people who know the real facts overwhelmingly favor Kerry.

Kerry must stop trying to justify the war or this or that vote on it and just make sure the public gets the facts. It is obvious that the more people who know that Bush lied about Saddam's weapons and his terrorist associations, the more likely it is that Kerry will win in November.

If Kerry wants to keep his options open about the occupation, that's okay with me. A man possessed of common sense will realize that the US must get out of Iraq sooner rather than later; I believe Kerry is a man with common sense, as much as he tries to convince us otherwise.

Kerry should come right out and call the Bushies a den of liars, say that there no WMDs have been found and that if there were any to be found, they would have been found by now and that Saddam had nothing to do with September 11.

The Bushies firmly believe nice guys finish last. When they're playing the game, that's unusually true. It's time for Kerry to tell the not-very-nice truth.

bush and sharon two ugly war criminals

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

he could have put it to bed easily, but it's becoming clearer to me he is not that great a politician by his frequent slip ups.

Once again, we see that Americans will insist on making their votes on one single issue! more often than not. Everybody is guilty of this... the righties, lefties, centrists, independents, and swingers all often vote for a candidate on one issue alone.

Has our species fallen down so much in intelligence? Can we not consider more than one thing at a time? It stuns me, we have the problem solving skills to split atoms, and at the same time, we have the intellectual density to only vote on one issue...

Not all people vote this way, but many, many, many do. Being turned off by one candidate because of one statement should persuade you away from him or her. Give Kerry a chance, or toss your hat with a doomed presidential bid of Nader, or support * and enjoy being raped, politically, when * gets another term.

Running for President is a very complex operation, the main goal being collecting as many popular votes as necessary to gain the most Electoral College votes to win the office. And as such, the candidate must be appealing to a very wide cross section of Americans. Look at * for example, he's trying to say he's environmentally friendly, and he wants to send food and support to the poorer sections of the world. That sounds like he's trying to capture a bunch of the green/liberal vote as he can. Kerry will do the same thing, because he as no other choice but to compromise on issues!

It boggles my mind when we tear down our leaders for making compromises, yet our whole nation is founded on compromise, and our system of laws and rights are a series of compromises. Geez...

Nothing Kerry or our party does can change the perception that Bush will be stronger on defense and terror. So, the solution is to soften the issue and move it down the list of priorities. If the swing voters are convinced that Bush and Kerry will both win on terror, then the prime issue becomes the economy. Kerry has a strong lead in that issue.

Besides, in 3 months, you will forget what Kerry said and will be ticked off at Bush sufficiently to vote for JFK. This is a smart move.

"And you can count on this: When I'm elected president, the terrorists will lose"

He has to make it even more simple, yeah I can understand the concept that Kerry is as strong or stronger than bush on terrorists. However if we are to learn from Karl Rove, you have to keep it simple.. watch bush talk, he's like the one line answer king. "yes" "no"

The last insider nominated by Democrats who beat the incumbent was Grover Cleveland..in 1892. Since then Democrats nominated Ambassador John W. Davis to run against Coolidge, Senator McGovern to run against Nixon, and former Vice President Mondale to run against Reagan. Hopefully Kerry will see that running against the President isn't like amending bills or cosponsoring legislation, the best cutthroat always wins!

"was primarily a matter for intelligence and law enforcement agencies."

Which set Tim Russert off because of the WAR on Terrorism label.

Lemme guess.

Kerry should say that the terrorists "are people too and need love and support like anybody else" or something like that.

It's...

AN ELECTION YEAR!

Actually you are taking the whole statement out of context. Certainly if you saw the speech, that was not the takeaway.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Kerry is being attacked by the RoveLieMachine for being soft on terrorism, national security, blah blah blah...

What in God's name is he supposed to say?