Corsi, who doesn't live in MA, may still run for Senate in '08.

Bring it on, motherf*cker, bring it on. You've heard that Massholes are very upset with their Gov, because he went around badmouthing the Commonwealth in front of other states, right? Just wait honey, until you come here.

1. You don't live here, you carpetbagging piece of shit.
2. We don't take kindly to lying assholes who defame veterans
3. We also don't take too kindly to racist bastards who blame everyone but themselves for their own problems.

Oh honey, please come here and waste Rethug money. You will have your ass handed to you. It's your money to waste. Prediction: Kerry 95 - Stupid people 5%.

I will actively campaign for him against this miserable SOB if he chooses to keep his senate seat instead. You guys won't need my help, but you'll getting it nonetheless. If it only means going for 96-4 instead of 95-5.
Do you really have that many stupid people in Mass, Tay Tay? 5% is a lot of dumb MFers.
This move is not about the senate, though, IMO. He's attempting some early swiftboating against a Kerry presidential run.
They're afraid of Mr Kerry. And they should be.

So, we do have stupid people here. But, against Corsi, it would have to be hardcore stupid. I figure that's probably about 5%.

Hey, who voted for Santorum in PA? All states have people that embarrass the rest of the people. It's just one of those things.

And based on who represents you in the Senate, you are.

I'm betting Casey 70-30 in '06. We're still learning.

We just have some really good people who shine enough so that even the dumb bastards know enough to vote for them. (Have you ever seen the candidates that the Rehtugs throw up against Kennedy? Oh my gawd, bottom of the barrel doesn't even begin to describe this parade of the lost.)

Kerry won most of his races going away. The most contested Senate race was the '96 and he still won that one by 7% points. (Not bad all things considered.)

I am congenitally incapable of taking credit for this. It is simply not done and anyway, it's not too good to go around bragging about stuff. The minute you do that, wham! it can all go away. (It's a Mass thing. We are, by nature, somewhat insecure.)

RW activist a "RW activist", it does sound like they want to keep this issue alive. I seems like in a perverted version of Kerry's idea that you need to keep the party active (at a lower level) during the off season, the Republicans are running a permanent campaign too. Their version seems to be to slime any likely Democratic opponent.

It might be that just mentioning SBVT - which then causes the Globe to talk about how they "derailed" (a bit strong for a campaign that looked like a winner in the last week before the BL tape.)the campaign and how Kerry was "slow to respond". The Globe (and others) seem to want those subjective comments to become canonical views of the 2004 race. As Mass mentioned they don't bother to say that it included lies.

In Kerry's case, I wonder if this might backfire. Kerry obviously opted not to sue them maybe because he had more important things to do or because the bar to win is so high for public figures. Also, even a Kerry win following weeks (or months) of them trashing Kerry on TV again could actually hurt Kerry.

But at some point, someone may (or should) do a real, serious book on the SBVT - who got them together, who funded them, how they coordinated stories, how they listed people who were not in agreement with them versus the truth about Kerry's war service, his real role in the protests, and his real role in the POW/MIA investigation. Kerry acted with incredible honor in each of these cases - unlike the slimers.

The people who wrote that book included:
Hoffman, who is (or is close to) a war criminal

O'Neil, who was brought in as a political operative by Nixon - it was clear in 1971, he didn't want to understand what Kerry was saying even when Kerry tried to explain that his swiftboat time was under a different mission.

The POW/MIA people, some of whom supported bogus claims of POWs left behind and then claim that nearly 20 years later Kerry covered up this crime of his dear friend Nixon.

One question is whether something similar would have been done to any Democratic nominee. Kerry had the most colorful, interesting life, so distorting things may have been easier, but the likelihood is that anyone who has done enough to be President would have something. (Consider they even took his distinguished job as Senate Chairman of the POW/MIA investigation as fodder.) This question makes it important to view how this happened and consider how something like this could be dealt with.

This group, with their book, their spokespeople, and their funding went well beyond any previous political attack (at least in my lifetime.) The book obviously began its life before Kerry won the nomination. This attack was beyond what happened to McCain which worked more because of McCain's response. The comparisons to Clinton's war room are ridiculous - Clinton was hit (mostly) by real things in his past, that he was able to overcome, largely because he was charming. They were also one charge at a time. (Enough women that Betsy Wright referred to them as "bimbo eruptions, the draft issue (where Clinton lied at first and where a snarky letter he wrote to the ROTC guy who kept him out came out) and the various Whitewater charges (that were never found to be true.)

When the SBVT book came out, Kerry was literally hit with 100s of charges that were often contradictory and all contradicted the official record. The media, took the charges - which had no back up and contradicted the official record - and demanded Kerry prove himself innocent (ignoring the records) rather than questioning the accusers and asking them to back up their charges. With 100+ pages of records on his web site, 9 of the 10 people on his boat swearing by him, and other people (like Rood) who were intimately involved backing him, Kerry answered these charges far more thoroughly than Clinton answered any of the charges against him.

They should be addressed now, not in 07-08 when there will be more important issues. I hope this is handled now, so it can die an early death and not resurrect itself pre -'08
I really believe, though, that Sen Kerry should not have to defend himself. He has said who he is. He should not have to say who he isn't.
You make an excellent point about the media. Someone should write a book, not about the SBLs, but about how the media advanced their lies. Writing about ONeil and Hoffman would only legitimize them. The focus should be on how the media took a bunch of lies, half truths and distortions, and gave them a mainstream voice.

They will be dropped like so much rancid food soon, because they have served their purpose for the BFEE and the Rethug Party. They will either have to find new veterans to slime, perhaps Paul Hackett, or cease operations.

This is a gasp of a dying organization to cling to publicity and a sense of relevency. They will fail and go on the trash heap of history.

Did anyone see how quickly the media nailed Bush for his fake photo op yesterday with the troops? If only we had that kind of a media last year.

Sometimes, though, these things lurk in the shadows, then come out to bite you in the ass when you least expect. I'd love to see the SBLs shredded before they're tossed on the scrap heap.
I wouldn't count on the media to stay on message. Bush* is red meat. That's why they helped him make a fool of himself yesterday (like he needed help with that). When the '08 campaign begins, they'll back who they're told to back, and we'll likely have the same fight on our hands that we had in '04. Cyclical, yes, but driven by the almighty dollar.
JMHO.

Where were you guys last year?

Olbermann did an incredible segment on the whole thing last night, and in addition he covered Scotty's gaggle, in which the entire White House Press Corpse morphed into an angry mob. Scotty actually insulted Helen Thomas from the podium, and got into a foodfight with Jim Vandehei. It was great.

Crooks and Liars has all kind of video on both meltdowns. I was listening to Stephanie Miller cover the Bush debacle live, and they were :rofl: at what they were seeing, while not quite believing their eyes. That would be available in yesterday's podcast.

Also, Chris Matthews has been heavily covering the whole Plame thing, and not in a way that's covering the administration's ass in any way.

The rats are streaming for the exits off the poop deck of the Titanic.

of these these smears. I do think that to really explain the genesis of the smears, the backgrounds - as relate they relate to Kerry - of these two men is needed. One thing that was repeated regularly to give credence to the lies was that Kerry's entire line of supervisors during his swiftboat time period were involved. In spite of the fact that they wrote very positive reviews and recommended him for accelerated promotion, this was taken as proof that there was something there.

A Washington Post article (that was posted here) interviewed Hoffman and found that the root of his involvement and that of his subordinates was that they were upset with Brinkley's Tour of Duty portrayal of the Market time mission. Brinkley had interviewed them and 100s of other people involved and they don't come out well. The fact that the sharpest criticism comes from others not Kerry (1960s, 1970s or 2000s), didn't diffuse their anger at the portrayal.

This was an issue they should have taken up with Brinkley or by writing a rebuttal explaining that Brinkley (and a certain 25 year old Jr officer) missed the overall point of the mission, which they could then explain. This would have been fair. That they contradicted their own written comments, and subsequent endorsements of Kerry's character and made charges that were absolutely incompatible with the earlier evaluations absolutely discredits them. Hoffman's comment that Kerry was never mean to him (before the book) was just sad.

Should be extensive, well-funded, and totally baseless campaign:banghead::banghead:

Doesn't he realize that the only view people got of him was that of a very obnoxious, ugly (inside and out) creep who spews filth. Even his RW publisher opted to hide him after his true colors were shown. Even if there were a huge ABK movement in Massachusetts, I doubt they would turn to Corsi. (He really is very ugly - he lives one town over in NJ - so I studied his picture in case our paths crossed.)

What's strange is that he doesn't seem to consider that he has given people absolutely no reason to vote FOR him. He is clearly deluded if this is not just an effort to see his name in print or to provoke Kerry into responding. I liked Wade's comment -''Although I could say plenty about Jerry Corsi, John Kerry is focused on his work for the people of Massachusetts." - which was perfect. (Because we can all vaguely imagine the "plenty")

Is this man legally sane?
Quote:
Corsi said that he will consider running regardless of whether Kerry seeks reelection but that he would relocate to Massachusetts only if it were clear he could attract the financial support to mount a serious campaign.

''If I have no backing, it may not work," he said.

:spray: = my coffee hitting the computer screen.

You think? What a worthless toad. I had a lot of time to think about this yesterday on our annual trip to the Cape/Yom Kippur observance (don't ask).

Maybe I'm crazy, but I see signs. Tell me if you think this is nuts.

1.) Al Gore says he's not running in 2008, causing lefty freeper heads to explode all over Kos and DU. What a mess. Needless to say, I wonder what all those same people were saying about Gore in , oh, let's say, 2001????

2.) Teddy backs JK for 2008. I've been musing as to why he did this. It's way early, but it certainly seems to have been meant as a warning shot across Hillary's bow. Teddy's too slick a pol to let something like that slip accidentally.

3.) Like magic, I'm hearing Kerry's name all over the radio and tv just in the past week - in a positive way - as though he's been resurrected from the dead. This is from talking heads and AAR alike. It's almost like he's been through his trial by fire and declared an official survivor of the great 2004 debacle. I wonder if people aren't finally seeing him through 20/20 (rueful) hindsight, and saying to themselves, hey. He looks pretty good.

It was inevitable that Kerry would face severe criticism after the 2004 loss. This is just human nature. There are a lot of people who didn't just want to win a political race in 2004, it had become a personal cause and something that they put their heart and soul into. They didn't win. This engendered, fairly or not, the search for a scapegoat. The top of the ticket always gets blamed. (Because, the faults lies always in our stars and not in ourselves, sigh!)

I know this is maddening and unfair. I also know that it has to run it's course. (Again, human nature 101.) All that poison has to come out, one way or another. (It really does.) Democrats and especially liberal Democrats are not shy about voicing their opinions. (It has ever been thus.)

But, at some point it does get better. It's a slow process and some people will never give up their 'It's his fault and he sucks' theme. Ever. They just have invested too much of themselves into this argument to be swayed by stubborn facts.

I think the comback will be successful and slow. 'Just keep swimming, just keep swimming.' I say that because it's what tough smart people do. They make sure they batten down the thatches, secure the riggings and wait out the storm. They all eventually pass. (Even McGovern, who lost 49 states, got forgiven, eventually.) It's a process, you have to let it run it's course. (And it's also another test, if you care to think about it that way. Again, toughness, heart and character are revealed.)

I think Sen. Kennedy and Kerry have come to an understanding, after all these years. There was a time when they were kind of odd rivals, which reflects more on the unique position that Teddy K holds in MA than anything like fairness, ability and so forth. (We have baggage here. I bet your state does too, but on other things.) I truly think that Sen. Kennedy believes that Sen. Kery is a good guy and would genuinely be a good President. And they work well together now and the families blend well. After all these years, we have a team. (And it doesn't hurt the unanimity when it is perceived that the * Admin is out to 'get' Massachusetts. Nothing brings people together like having a common enemy.)

I think you're right about the relationship they've worked out. What struck me about Teddy's comment the other day was its timing. Especially with John's laser focus on 2006 and refusal to talk about 2008. I agree that Teddy "believes that Sen. Kery is a good guy and would genuinely be a good President". I just thought there was something behind his making that comment right now. Seemed like he was trying to make a point. I was trying to figure out what the message behind the message was, and who he was aiming it at. You have to imagine he and John have discussed the subject but plenty over dinner or whatever, in private, and probably with spouses in attendance.

Google image search is a wonderful thing. :D

Kennedy seems to have the knack of making Kerry laugh. You really do have two very nice Senators.

He was going around smiling, joking and backslapping with everyone. It seems to come easily to him.

We do have a nice set of Senators, and we're very proud of them. :D

I don't hear Kerry's name as often here - which doesn't discourage me. It's probably too early - but it really looks like he might end up the likeliest alternative to Hillary or another centrist candidate. The likelihood is that many contenders for that position will be pushed by the press between now and then.

I can't see most of them sticking. Feingold may have a brief honeymoon with the left - especially as he is bringing up the IWR vote again. I hate this on many levels - he is in the Senate and knew the difficulty others had - and he knows that it divides Democrats and lets Bush off the hook. I also wonder if cynical political opportunism kept him from signing Kerry's intelligence report II (DSM)letter. (I wish he would have left it to his supporters to make it a plus that he voted against the IWR.)

But, those were 2004 issues, likely to be old hat in 2008. His plan lacks both sense and substance - set a target date as a goal and leave if political objectives are met? If the political goals are met, we will leave (even before the date). If the political goals are not met and we don't leave, does that leave the LW freepers even madder. I haven't heard enough about any other positions. He might be good, but he has to prove it.

Edwards and Clark will have no more real experience than they did in 2004 - which hurt both. Clark will have more years as a Democrat - I think he'll be up to about 7 years at the time of the primaries.

I don't know about Gore. He might change his mind if he feels he has a shot at it. It was a real goal he had for a long time. He could have had 2004 for the asking, even without undertaking pre-2002 what Kerry is trying to do. The media bias he faced was less than what Kerry faced and he had nothing near the polemical smearing Kerry did. The sad thing is he really was very clean, other than when he was with Clinton. (The Buddhist temple/Chinese money thing might reappear - although it may have been more Clinton) He may not want to go through that again.

I don't think the governors will be good choices because the world is in a mess. Bayh is interesting in this respect as he was a successful Indiana Governor and may have gained some foreign policy expertise in the Senate - I don't know his committees. If Hillary implodes (with Bill scandals or any missteps in what looks to be an easy re-election), Bayh might be the strongest centrist candidate.

I agree with you about Feingold. Of course, Gore can always change his mind, but at the moment I'm taking what he says literally, and I have no reason to doubt he means it. I think the 2000 election may have been more personally devastating to him that 2004 was to Kerry, and I have an idea (and I could be wrong about this) that Gore lacks Kerry's degree of toughness. I don't think Gore has those weeble characteristics we were talking about the other day - when he got knocked down he stayed down for quite a while. And when he righted himself he seemed to have undergone a personal transformation of sorts. He's a good man, and he has the right ideas, but running for president is a vicious game of survivor. I think Gore is not sure he has the stomch for doing it again (and who could blame him?)

Bayh is a strange case. He seems to be pinging back and forth between ultra-moderate (on most issues) with the occasional bow to the lefty freeper chorus (fire Rove!!) I find his liberal pretensions to be - um - pretensions - and imagine he and Hillary would be battling over the same turf. I don't see anyone with positions anywhere near Kerry's, and if his timing is right it seems possible that he could catch a wave of public resentment towards the neocons and the christian right and ride it right into office - a new goldena ge of american liberalism. I can dream, can't I?

I also think he is enjoying the freedom of being who he is without considering the political ramifications. I do think the loss was harder on him (and possibly Tipper). I love the Kerry weeble characterization and I think he is helped because Teresa has an element of that too. After Julia Kerry was so hurt by the 1972 period, I imagine the vicious 2004 attacks on Teresa must have been a nightmare for Kerry. That she is apparently ready to go through another run is absolutely amazing.

I think Bayh may be more liberal than his record suggests. He represents Indiana which would pull him to err on the conservative side - he is representing a very conservative state. His dad was fairly liberal and he actually grew up in DC. (shades of Al Gore) He went to Indiana University, which might have been his first real contact with the state. (One of my younger sisters knew him vaguely because his girl friend lived in her dorm. She remembers a nice guy who liked to argue politics. She really couldn't remember more, but as this was about 1973 - 1975 (not sure which year she knew him) he was likely earlier anti-war(as was Birch Bayh), then anti- Nixon, as she would likely have remembered him negatively otherwise. Like many people he may have shifted to the right from the early 70s.) I do think he is likely to be exactly where Hillary is. Unless he has fooled everyone he is nowhere near Kerry's liberalness.

If we have to have someone from that position, I would prefer Bayh to Hillary. He has the reputation of being very bland.

But I don't think he wants to run again. There was some reflection (or psychobabble) on that during and after the 2000 race. It was speculated that Gore ran to fulfill his Dad's wish that he run. He is now free of that and free to do what he wants to do, not follow a pre-ordained path. Given what Mr. Gore did after his loss, they may be some fragments of truth to that. He seems freer and happier than he did before, as though he is exactly where he wants to be now. I don't sense any great desire to climb back into the ring again as a candidate. I think he likes his role as a 'wise old man' of the Dem Party.

I think Kerry will run again because he is impelled to run. He has unfinished business with the country and with what drove him to the public eye all those years ago. That's a big difference.

and for pretty much the same reason you mention. I think he feels he has made a promise to the people of this country and if he doesn't run again he hasn't got a prayer of fulfilling that promise. I believe that matters to him a great deal.

He also has an unholy amount of energy (I'm jealous). He is not the kind of person who could ever retire. Even if he is not elected president I see him serving in an extremely high level position in the next democratic administration. But of course I fervently hope he will be the one giving the orders and choosing those who will serve with him.

I was surprised when the word came out so early last fall that the Kerry folks were up for another possible run. They had been through hell in that race. And it's not just the Senator, it's Teresa and his daughters and the Heinz sons. Vanessa is now an MD and should be about the business of practicing medicine and building a practice. Alexandra has just gotten a Hollywood film to direct. (And Hollywood is not friendly territory to women directors.) All those lives have to be put on hold again. It just surprised me that they all said that he could run again so quickly.

And I do think he is impelled to run. I actually think that's where the energy comes from, having the will to get up and do it again. (Weeble to the core.)

I sometimes wonder what it's like to have to live with that energy on a day-to-day basis. My husband is somewhat like that - a fidgeter - but not on the Kerry scale. And Teresa doesn't strike me as a blazing-bundle-of-energy type. In that way I definitely identify more with her. She's much more low key. And her willingness to do it all again is all the more impressive for that.

BTW, Dan Froomkin has a great bit on the Olbermann segment I mentioned earlier:



Note the if Karl Rove were still alive comment. I heard him say that, and was amazed at the implications of that little (I assume) gaffe. Bill Maher's show should be a lot of fun tonight.

Gore just doesn't seem to have the fire in his eyes and in his belly like Kerry does. To me he actually seems pretty laid back which doesn't seem to be the best characteristic for a presidential candidate to have. I do think he will would make a good choice for a cabinet position though (if he wants it).

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Select Committee on Intelligence
Special Committee on Aging
Committee on Armed Services
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Kerry used to be on the Banking Comm, but gave it up when the chance to get on Finance came up. (It's considered more prestigious and powerful.) They serve together on SBA.

My problem with Bayh is that he seems to be a lightweight. Other than his centrism, he doesn't seem to stand for anything. I can't think of any signature action that he has taken in the Senate. He just seems like a nice guy, but kind of bland.

Has anyone heard him on the stump? I saw him on a C-Span show and he seemed buttoned-up and very much someone who sticks to his talking points, no matter what. I didn't dislike him, he just seemed very vanilla.

that's the best i can describe him. he is moderate-conservative leaning. not much different from Robert Byrd and some others. but Byrd stands out because of his speeches. Bayh doesn't really stand out for anything.

Bayh said a few years ago he could never win in a Dem Primary because he is too conservative. but from what i hear if he decides to run in the Primary his whole thing will be that Kerry's 2004 loss shows we need a conservative leaning type to win. but even if that was the case i would rather go for Lieberman who isn't really conservative but more of a moderate with a liberal record on social issues. or even Mark Warner would be better.

i can understand being centrist,moderate etc. but still there should be a few issues that make you stand out as being a huge advocate of.

personally he isn't very impressive either. he has an attractive family but then so do many others.

he seems to lack the appeal of his father.

And a worthless sack of shit. He has ZERO chance of being elected in MA. Absolutely nil.

Yes, Massholes occasionally suffer temporary political brain damage, like the sort that caused them to vote for Mittens. But they eventually get over it. And it has never gotten severe enough to support a Corsi candidacy for any office.

Can you imagine a news conference here. jest one news conference. It would be friggin hilarious.

Mr. Coris, Gay Marriage is actually popular in Massachusetts and is unlikely to be voted out. How do you feel about representing a state that feels that way? (Corsi's head explodes.)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46857

This guy is truly delusional.



So he considers the state he says he wants to serve a "hostile environment"??? Sounds like he's taking a page from the Mittens Massachusetts bashing playbook. And we all know how well THAT is working...

Corsi would be lucky to get anyone to vote for him. He wold be lucky to get anyone to show up at a campaign rally. He'd have to offer free beer and kittens.

more pathetic or frightening, but I'm leaning heavily towards pathetic.



This has to be a pitiful attempt to try to keep his profile high. In that one brief segment he's said about 5 things that would be totally offensive to almost any MA voter, never mind the liberal ones.

hasn't released hie records. Also, Kerry's war records were not controversial 35 years ago - I think they want to continue using that word to make it true.