Sanity check, re: John Kerry.

Is it just me, or has Kerry done more to oppose the Bush administration in the 15 months since the election than he did in the four years prior?

Thanks anyway, John!

the same isrepresentation, the same empty non valid statement that kept him messing with the bullshit during the campaign as opposed to the important stuff. jsut another way to shut people up

But to this day, pretty much anyone you ask can do a better job of articulating Kerry's position on, say, Iraq than Kerry can do for himself.

And I'd vote for him again in 08 if he runs, but I'm not one of those worshippers who believe that we'll be spirited into Democratic Utopia by the stony guidance of President Kerry.

wasnt hard for me at all. i am not too highly educated, though up there. i am not a genious. but .... i never had any problem understanding the man, which leads me to ask.... did you not listen????? my 8 and 10 year olds could understand what the man said. i have got to assume you are beyond that, in comprehension

this is the same repug media crap./

act all confused with 87b

i voted for before against

oh i dont understand i dont get it tooo too confusing. woe is me

ya. that wAS A TOUgh one. made kerry explain it for months

i voted for it with my plan that took away tax breaks
i voted against bush plan to put debt on children

and still....... people, repugs, media,..... and even fellow dems would say, he is sooooo confusing

forgive me if i sound snotty. but this to me is a game for agenda sake. and it is a waste of time. and it is not valid. and most importanty it isnt true

I'm not saying that I found him confusing. I'm saying that his failure to articulate his position in a consistent and accessible manner worked very much to his detriment.

Ask the average voter where Bush stands on any issue, according to Bush's own words.

Then ask that voter where Kerry stands on any issue, according to Kerry's own words.

Kerry's positions are complex, nuanced, and well-matched to the complex nuance of the world. But voters respond less to dissertations than to sound-bytes.

Ask the average voter to recall a Bush sound-byte. It will likely be something about "staying the course" or "spreading democracy."

Ask the average voter to recall a Kerry sound-byte. If they can manage it at all, they'll likely remember "I voted for the Iraq war before I voted against it."

We can gripe about the media's mistreatment of Kerry and its total obeisance to Bush, but that's the state of things, and bitching about it won't help. Any Democratic candidate must recognize and combat the problems of Repub-friendly media. Kerry utterly failed to do this. How did he respond to the Swift-boat liars? By letting them run unchallenged all over the media for two weeks before he responded.

Kerry (and his campaign in general) failed to understand the complexity of the media, even as he articulated his understanding of the complexity of the world.

Thanks for playing, John.

solve issues and problems with sound bites. we cannot be a nation of dumb, or we will have failure. dont blame this shit, of thinking on kerry. it is crap. we cannot be a party of sound bite. it will not work. and there is point after point that is will not work. firstly

second, people dont know kerry's position becasue media did not allow kerrys position to get out. media consistantly said kerry did not have a plan. i watched the first kerry speech get on msm oct of fuckin 2004. the first time a whole speech was out there for the american people. 20 friggin minutes he gave his plan on iraq, education, health care and small business. pretty damn good. had to be articulate to get huge subjects down to a mere 20 minutes.

adn msm comes back and says boring, adn no plan and continued to diss the man

americans cant sit for 20 minutes to listen to someone to solve americans problems,... shame the fuck on them.

So let's not waste time complaining about what the media should have done for Kerry. Also, let's not pretend that Americans will magically gain a 20-minute attention span just to accommodate a stentorian candidate's diction. You have to play the hand that you're dealt, otherwise you're not playing at all.

By the way--in addition to Kerry's failure to comprehend the nature of mass media, he absolutely failed to project a sympathetic image to the electorate. Wind-surfing and snowboarding do not play as well in public perception as to brush-clearing and jogging.

Kerry did many things right during his campaign, but he did many things wrong. But blaming the public for not figuring him out is like blaming someone for not believing that you're famous. If you have to argue about it, you're not famous. If you have to convince people that Kerry's message is simple and accessible, it isn't.

did people really have a problem with kerry and windsurfing, or is it people like you convincing the american people that they have a problem with kerry windsurfing.

Go on--keep rooting for the 04 strategy so that we can get shut out again in 08.

If you can do no better than to implicitly accuse me of being a closet Republican, then I have no time for you.

To what, in your estimation, have I not been listening?

Kerry's Cheerleaders invariably accuse liberal critics either of being covert Republicans or of just not seeing the big picture.

I see it just fine, thanks very much.

...but that's just me.

Just because corporate media refused to allow the public discussion of Bush's failures, doesn't mean they weren't repeatedly pointed out by Kerry and some other Democrats who repeatedly stuck their necks out.

And no one has done more to investigate and expose the entire BFEE operation than Kerry has throughout his Senate career - IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning - ALL pursued by Kerry and almost always against the DC powerstructure, including powerful Dems.

if they chose. unfortunately a lot on htis board chose to ignore fact for agenda

media. It's takes awhile to recover from the brainwashing.
To those who are interested, this is an excellent place to start:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/

maybe they should quit dismissing and dissing the man and become informed. sorry not a lot of patience.

.

In my perfect world he'd have his own news show on PBS.

Consultants etc... who are more worried about form than substance?

to figure it out.

than the repugs are allowed. repugs are allowed to cheat steal be corrupt lie like dogs and media lets them get away with it. while dems spend the time fighting the i invented internet bullshit or swiftboat bullshit. dems talk bush policy and are accused of personally attacking hte man in unfairness. dems exaggerate anything, and they are called liars. two different treatments of candidates.

He obviously wants to run again.

dems that we attack mercilessly

but part of it is he wants to run for president again.

insist you know it. prove it. that is bullshit and has nothing to do with intellectual discussion. merely a guess or assumption on your part and no more

Your posts in this thread have been little more than foot-stomping and crying "bullshit."

Look, I'm sorry that Kerry didn't win, and yes we know that the Republicans are self-serving thugs who'll stop at nothing to maintain power.

Kerry has made himself a more viable candidate post-election than ever he was prior. If he runs in 08, he'll be campaining against himself first and his Republican opponent second.

Best of luck to us all.

foot stomping? hm

what would you like to learn

Do you have a crystal ball? :eyes: Please. So I guess when Kerry did BCCI and Iran/Contra he was wanting to run for president than too. :eyes: LOL. So funny.

in that and really cant compare the two time frames. but kerry has held to his promise that if he didnt win, e would use his position in senate to hold bush accountable. i think he has gone the best job,along with conyer easily, but we have a lot of dems that are doing a good job. again .... thing are different today as thing accumulate than just a mere year ago

He has done a lot in opposition to Bush since 2001. But Kerry, as with all other Democrats, doesn't get the credit for it. (Seriously, are any Deomcrats getting credit for this in the MSM?)

they want someone like Clinton or Kerry to run who has a voting record that they can abuse.

:D

but he seems to keep voting with them on most important issues

he's the pro rasslin villain to their "good guy" in the repuke version of the WWF. His "opposition" seems scripted to me, like his 2004 "campaign" to be noisy but ultimately ineffectual.

Not media caricatures but actual records.

Then try explaining your claim.

but then he votes for renewal of the patriot act . . . :shrug:

the prescient Dems tried to push anti-terror legislation through for years but were blocked by Repubs and ignored by the media - THEN 9-11 happened and Bush took advantage and snagged previous legislation as his own and added an onerous aspect to the bill that doesn't belong there.

Dems had to decide whether to vote for the 90% they agreed with or not.

Since last week, some Senators AGAIN submitted amendments to the Patriot Act, including Feingold and Kerry. They haven't given up completely.

It will be crucial in 2009 to have a Dem president who will use the bully pulpit to dump the onerous aspects of the bill.

voting for that piece of garbage was a de facto approval of fascism and the neo-theocon agenda, every bit as stupid as having given king george war powers in the first place.

Anyone familiar with BCCi knows that had those books been opened, the entire global terror network would have been exposed as a partnership between international financiers, official governments, banking institutions, armsdealers, drugrunners and moneylaunderer - also known as the BFEE.

They sponsored terror in different regions to gain control over resources and perpetuate the market for the military industrial complex.

There was also the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that Bush refused to read and implement when it was given to him in Jan 2001. That was quickly adopted after 9-11 and passed off as Bush's efforts.

is highly debatable

it clearly is limited and ineffective when compared to what the Dems sought throughout the 90s.

it also is nowhere near "90%" of the Patriot Act.

seems like you want all matters judged by Bush standards, just as Repubs fought good legislation because they feared Clinton.

Good legislators don't push through legislation based only on who the president is at the time.

Kennedy has always been a great legislative force - do you really think he would vote for this bill if there weren't a majority of it that was needed?

Even Feingold voted FOR the Senate-altered version of the Patriot Act last year.

it's hard for them to ignore that he was right. They try to, but the blogs have changed the equation. It's easier to call attention to Kerry's past efforts and current work.

Seems like he's always been a dedicated senator, very strong on most of the issues that are important to us. But now we're keeping close track of what he's doing, and a lot of us are on his mailing list since the "election." Even with that factor, he's probably doing more in recent years, simply because there's more that needs to be done. I'm glad he's still active in the Senate. We need more like him!

to be heard. knowing he isnt going to get jack shit from media

first, it's hard to say "Kerry has opposed the bush administration" when he, and most if not all Senate Dems keep voting for more unconditional funding for bush's war ... that's not opposition; it's support ...

and it's not opposition to support giving bush the line item veto either as another DU'er stated Kerry is advocating ... is this true? giving bush the line item veto would cede even more unrestrained power to the Executive branch at a time Congress has already miserably failed in its oversight role ...

if Kerry supports the line item veto, it's hard to make a case about opposing bush ...

i see these issues of war and power as two of the most critical issues ... if Kerry has been strong in opposing bush on other issues, that's great ... but, at least based on my read, it's nowhere near enough ...