OMG - my local radio show just defended Kerry BIG TIME

AZ has the BEST talk show on Saturdays. It should be national.

They just played a clip of what Bsh said to get the Congress to vote for the war!
What Bsh said was "This is a chance for Congress to show that they want to keep the peace".
Then they said - THIS IS WHAT KERRY VOTED FOR!
And when people say he voted for the Iraq war - It's a lie:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Cheney's lesbian daughter, and took so much heat for that.
And Lynne Cheney said "Kerry is a bad, bad man."
They just said that Lynne Cheney had written a book
about lesbians prior to her time in the WH.

Kerry is getting alot of love on this show tonite:toast:

Later tonite, I will do a google search for that book.

WhoooooHoooooo!

what is the show topic about ?

They talk about one thing, take calls, talk about something else.
This is just where the calls lead them. One caller called in about a book she was reading and it had Bennett and Lynne Cheney in it. That's what lead to the Lynne comment. And the War - well - it is always being talked about.
They are really good, knowledgeable. Calm, unlike Randi, but not boring like Franken.

Their #1 line is "Never, ever vote for a republican, no matter what".

early primary states. I watched some of the DNC meeting to day on Presidential primaries (before I watched the Sawx lose to the Yankees, sigh) and they are adding one southern and one western primary to the early window. AZ might be the western one chosen. This is good news.

(They can't just get rid of Iowa and NEw Hampshire, it's too complicated legally. But this is a good alternative and can actually be done without the whole damn process winding up in court for years and years. I am happy about this.)

So, looks like I'll be busy in NH in 2007. (As will our friends in the Hawkeye State.) Anybody need a room for a very cold January primary? (LOL! I know it's too early as well as everyone else, I'm just saying.)

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19337.asp

I'm posting this in GD.
This is tooo good.
Hot, steamy lesbian love. From Mrs. Cheney. I guess if you are married to the Dickhead, you would need a rich fantasy life.... or maybe she is living in a closet!

right after Mrs. Satan - I mean Mrs. Cheney, made a big stink about Kerry's comment after the debate. I think I only saw it on the internets though. The story was squashed by the MSM. (Imagine that.) I'm glad she hasn't had to depend on her writing skills to make a living. Judging from the few paragraphs in that link, I think she would starve.

On edit: For shits & giggles I went to Amazon.com and read the reviews for the book (yes, I'm having an exciting Saturday night). Some of the reviews are hilarious.

Don't get mad at me for saying this, but after her rude comments to Kerry, why didn't anyone fight back??? Another example of how the dems let him down! Schrum or Cahill should have had this all over the place.
I hated her for saying that about Kerry! And now that I know this ....

I don't know why no one fought back by brining up the book. (I certainly don't think it should have been Kerry doing it - that would have just made the situation worse.)

I hated the media for focusing on NOTHING else but Kerry's comment for at least three days after he said it. I remember it was even the subject of the Sunday morning talk shows which I thought was ridiculous. It showed just how desperate they were to change the subject away from real issues.

All I could think was that someone told him to say that. I could tell that Kerry was uncomfortable saying it. He is not one that would ever make an issue out of someone's sexual orientation. Yes the question was about this topic, but his answer took me by surprise. I'm not blaming Kerry for saying it, my gut tells me he was told to say it and he used the opportunity... and you're right, the RW had a field day with it.
If I knew about this then, I would have emailed every media outlet about it. The book is the total opposite of what the bushiter campaigned on.
Grrrr!

And the REthugs were desperate to make it the issue. Not so much about attidtudes toward Gays and LEsbians, but that Kerry had stepped over the line by discussing someone else's personal family situation. Sigh! We need a new media in this country.

Oh, and the issues right around then were also the admission by the NYTimes that the aluminum tubes that Judy Miller reported were being used in IRaq solely to house parts for Nukes (you know, WMD's the original justificaiton for going to war) were too small to be used in nukes. This was a big deal as it went to the idea of lying us into war. Kerry was right to speak out about this, but surrogrates should have called the media on their bullshit and moved the conversation off of Mary Cheney and onto something that mattered. Sigh!

If the media doesn't do it's job, we will have to do it for them.

If we knew then what we know now...
This book would have shut Ms. Cheney up, and
the Sunday talk shows would of had to talk about the real news - the bs about the aluminum tubes. If we could only turn back time!

The media wasn't buying bringing it up last year. We tried.

From what I remember she both pointed out that Cheney had been publicly out for years, Cheney had used it himself, and her job was as contact to the gay community for Coors. It only really made it worse - because the media then attached Elizabeth.

"I am not pleased with Kerry since the election". giggle.

What is this about. I should have called in, but been getting things ready for my daughter's sleep over tonite.

I am getting so depressed!!!!! This Kerry bashing is everywhere.
I just don't understand anymore :)

Off to get ready for cosmic bowling.
Maybe I'll pretend those pins are Kerry bashers.

What more do they want from the guy?

:grouphug: :hi:

to discourage his base of support. I just hate to think this is a static being deployed by another Dem's.I'm like you, there has been way to much of this type of misleading crap being played on the radio,TV and blogs. My only local liberal radio station personality complained this past week that Donald Duck would have run a better campaign then Kerry and said she was actually an ABB supporter. I wrote her back and explained my point of view and asked why she felt a need to malign kerry. Never got an answer back. I have to wonder why now, people have to down him. You would thing they would be saying how right kerry was when he mentioned this or that during the campaign and give him some credit. Instead, they attack him. Why? My tin foil hat theory is that factions inside the party don't want him to run ever again and are trying to ruin his reputation and his chances.
Tucker Carlson-the jerk- had to comment that even with Bush's numbers down and the Dem's looking better, Kerry would still lose to Bush. of course, he is deluding himself, but still why continue to try and do a job on Kerry?
I'm not giving up though, this bullsh*t makes me more determined than ever to keep on correcting wrong information and defending him.

Don't they know they are playing right into the hands of the repukes? :shrug:

YA THINK?!?!?!?!? I want every last one of 'em to APOLOGIZE, and get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness from their constituents for voting in favor of that stupid war!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq_politics

Pro-War Votes May Haunt Democrats

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a political problem — they supported a war that their party's rank-and-file now strongly view as a mistake.

Their pro-war votes — cast three years ago — could haunt them as they seek early support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.

"For a lot of activists, this could be a threshold issue. They may be looking for somebody without any taint for prior support for the war," said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina are mulling over running for the Democratic nomination. All voted in October 2002 for a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.

They no doubt will be forced to explain their positions — both then and now — and in doing so could open themselves to attack from candidates who didn't support the resolution or didn't have to cast the politically tricky vote.

The only other oft-mentioned potential Democratic presidential candidate in the Senate — Russell Feingold, D-Wis. — voted against the resolution. Other possible hopefuls, such as Govs. Mark Warner of Virginia, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, weren't in Congress.

Primary races are all about which candidate gets the largest share of support from the party faithful. Public opinion polls show that Democratic loyalists overwhelmingly disapprove of Bush's handling of the war and believe the United States should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

That staunch opposition raises questions of whether Democratic primary voters will be comfortable supporting a candidate who at least initially backed the war they oppose.

The situation facing Democrats who voted for the Iraq war resolution has been likened to Sen. Eugene McCarthy's 1964 vote in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, perceived as the vehicle that gave President Johnson carte blanche to escalate the Vietnam War.

McCarthy, D-Minn., had become a war critic by the time he announced his intention to challenge Johnson for the Democratic nomination in 1968. But McCarthy didn't pay a political price for his Gulf of Tonkin vote.

In fact, McCarthy was such a vehement foe of the war that he was on the razor's edge of the opposition. That contributed to Johnson's decision not to seek another term.

The race for the 2004 Democratic nomination produced conflicting lessons about how support for the Iraq war could affect a candidacy.

Two months before the Iowa caucuses, polls showed Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., vying for the lead in a crowded Democratic field.

Then, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean launched a TV ad in Iowa criticizing Gephardt's work with the Bush administration in drafting the Iraq resolution. It showed Gephardt, then the House minority leader, standing alongside Bush in the White House Rose Garden.

The ad has been credited with helping to sink his candidacy.

Even so, Dean's anti-war candidacy flamed out after being the early favorite. And Democratic voters ended up looking past Kerry's support of the resolution when they chose him as the party's nominee.

Democratic strategists point to that as they play down the possible impact of the Iraq resolution vote on the 2008 Democratic race.

They note that the primary season is more than two years away. Voters likely will focus on the candidate's current positions on Iraq, a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops, and a future vision for the military and its veterans, they say.

Democrats, strategists say, likely will mull questions such as: Did candidates who voted initially for the war continue voting to give the president billions of dollars to continue operations? Did they press for a withdrawal strategy? What was their position as the war dragged on with no end in sight, casualties climbed and the price tag soared?

"It's going to be about what did you do since you voted for the war," said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster.

Still, Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, said discussions of how candidates voted on the Iraq war resolution vote will occur as potential candidates rally supporters and try to raise money early on.

"This could be an issue — but one of many issues," Brazile said.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Posted by: NonnyO at October 17, 2005 06:47 PM

BTW...Brazille sucks IMO.

anymore. Anything she has to say, I immediate ignore and follow a different path.

or maybe she knows Hillary won't have her as campaign mnanager and Kerry didn't pick her for his team in 2004. (Bayh and Edwards are just less likely) I'm not sure how Gore would have voted - He had some early 2002 speaches where he felt Saddam had to be constrained. I don't thionk he ever spoke out directly on the IWR, but was adamantly against the war in very late 2002 and early 2003. At least he spoke out before Dean.

Kerry made the perfect statement with this vote: we voted for the president to load the gun, not to shoot himself in the foot.