OK self-indulgent BS (part II)

A response in KG's thread in GD-P in response to KG on Biden.


First: WTF?

Second: Every friggin person supports someone. If they don't yet, they will. Does that mean they become less credible?

Third: I doubt this person even knows who does or doesn't support Kerry's plan.

His contention is that there is more credibility when someone who is NOT behind a candidate backs an action of his than when his own supporters do. There is some truth to this - but it ignores that we can provide information (with links or not). To see this, look at any of the Clark threads, where his partisans write long, complicated explanations of his Iraq position and why he was the greenest of the 2004 candidates. I like their references, but find their threads unconvincing.

But the night Kerry's op-ed on Iraq came out lots of independent people and known supporters of others thought it was good. Unlike us, it was sufficient for them to just say, "good". So in that way, she's correct, but without people here posting all that Kerry is doing, it would not be seen. Also, correcting the misconceptions is something that does have some impact. (That's why I love the excerpt from the Lapdog's book - the numbers on media coverage show what Kerry was up against.)

He is someone who has been consistent. He also holds all the politicians to the same standard - and finds them lacking. He recognizes that on many of his issues, Kerry has gone further than anyone else - but just doesn't see that you can't lead if you start miles further away than the people you want to lead.

You and KG handled these posts well. I do understand that it's easy to write off the opinion of a known supporter of a specific candidate, but you can't blow off facts (well, you can but that's another story).

IMO, a person can be a really strong supporter and a very reliable advocate if facts are used to back up the argument. In fact, a non-supporter may validate a position (Hayden on Iraq or an expert on environmental issue), but are is that person following Kerry on other issues to be able to argue his position? That's what his staff is there to do, and they fall into the group of supporters. It really is a tough job to set the record straight because there are so many biased so-called experts out there.

I agree Independents do offer validation, but it means the case was made. For example, the Independents for Kerry site has a lot of information. I'm sure linking to that site is not the kind of validation that these posters want. Other than facts, I'm really not sure what they want. Do they want UPJ to validate Kerry's position on withdrawal or do they want the facts laid out in the resolution and his statements? If it's both, that's fine. If it's only validation from a specific group they seek, that's fine too, but that would, of course, constitute blind loyalty.

There is always the tendency by some to accuse Kerry supporters here of blind loyalty. Yet, this group is among the best in terms of sourcing information.


Seems loyalty is becoming the other "L" word.

for quickly responding. I agree that we have been the strongest on sourcing things. It might be that because the JK forum started after the election - we came in knowing his positions and agreeing with and being incredibly impressed by his world view.

I also think that we are supporting the man for who and what he really is - if, on something we disagree, we disagree. We don't try to "redefine creatively" his position.

Calling out of this sort in the groups could lead to a discussion that goes against the group's charter.