An observation about GD and reactions to JK

I have been looking at some of the idiotic responses to the impeachment joke issue and I think I see a pattern.

What Kerry does is usually way "over the heads" of the average posters. And sometimes over our heads, too. But in here, we tend to react by trusting that he knows what he's doing, until later when we understand how it all fits into an overall strategy--we see the patterns and motives later.
But out there, many of the most negative people simply take each event on its face, and never look into it any deeper, never want to reserve judgement until they find out more, and never want to cut him any slack.
They make a knee-jerk assessment, calling JK an idiot, a DINO, or whatever name they think will make them look clever. Then they dismiss him entirely and say they will never support him again, etc.

But if we come to JK's defense and say something like, "wait and see", we look like blind, koolaid drinking followers. We don't have inside info that would prove it, and we can't make them trust JK as we do without writing them a book about what he's done in the past that gives us that faith in him. And even if we did, they still wouldn't believe us.

So what is the best way to argue? Or is it a pointless waste of time?

So what is the best way to argue? Or is it a pointless waste of time?

First off, I would focus on correcting lies and distortions that can easily be corrected with facts. At least that provides info to lurkers that shows JK in the proper good light.

As for the knee-jerk opinion type reactions:

* "DINO" seems demonstrably not true to me, so that can be dealt with by linking to a site that shows him as 11th most liberal (anyone have that link? I actually lost it), or pasting the graphic from OnTheIssues that shows where he is positionally. Maybe also post the graphic of the attacker's favorite "left" politician, to show how close they are (if it's Dean) or how much more left JK is (if it's, say, Bayh).

* Other opinions, what about just saying something like, "I've been watching Kerry for a long time, and sometimes he's up to something and doesn't show his cards right away. I think that might be what's going on here."

just some ideas.

I once studied history at a French university and I always try to set recent and unfolding events in a wider historical context. That's the reason I was so amazed about Kerry's CFR speech which shows that he has a profound knowledge and understanding of our contemporary world (while Bush can't see beyond the trees outside the White House windows).

I think under these circumstances it's extremely difficult to try to convince people who are only able to see the story of the day and react to it. You would first have to educate them better, give them a lesson in history etc., and that's not possible.

To correct these people when they get the facts wrong and repeat the Republican talking points, is important. But every effort to show them the larger picture is IMO really a waste of time. And does it really matter what they think right now? They react to every 24-hour news cycle, day after day. And before another election which could be important for JK, they will have changed their minds a thousand times.

Some of them will change their opinon of a Dem leader on the basis of one statement or action. They never see the big picture.

They're like fans of a sports team. Dems win one: yay! Dems lose one: boo!! It's all so shallow. The thrill of winning is what mainly matters, not say, the fate of our country or anything!

And they're mad at Kerry (amazingly, even after more than a year!) because he "took away" their victory party. And they'll stay bitter, because they have fixed blame on the easiest target. It's all about them, isn't it. Well they can just cry me a river--Kerry isn't stuck in 2004--and he of all people has a right to be. But he knows it's not all about him.

Rant over! :rant: :blush:

at best (as I believe Fitz would say) is "heresay."

While I'm proud JK (allegedly) suggested what we (allegedly) heard he said...it really is best to smile silently, and walk away from "knee jerk" reactions...all the while humming perhaps "Hail to the Chief"...

or at least "Merry Christmas to all!"

It's like driving in traffic. People only glance; they don't look very closely at all. Lousy way to get news.

because their intention is to bash him no matter what. i read some of the earlier threads on his impeachment joke and many of them said "too little too late" and of course they bash him for saying it's a joke afterwards but they already showed they weren't supportive to begin with.

much of it has to do with not wanting to give him credit for anyone because he might run in a primary again and they support someone else. and much of it has to do with anger over the last primary. and some are just right wing Nader supporter types who just hate the party.

some of them are honest and you can usually tell because they are willing to listen to other opinions and their criticisms have more substance rather than the usual crap of just throwing out some stupid lines like calling him a dino, brining up skull and bones etc.

and someone else mentioned this in another thread and i agree 100 percent with it. if anyone other than Kerry had done the same thing they would have been praised for it. even the part where he says it was a joke. the other person would have been commended for still getting it out there and the "truth in humour" part of it.

how politics really works. Kerry does, because he's been doing it for so long. He knows there are things you can get away with saying, but not officially. Even if he was totally serious, saying it in any official manner would just give more ammo to the rethugs.