Before we get too jazzed about Kerry, let's remember he said THIS:

[MercutioATC]

"In a major national security address Wednesday Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. “I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748


Where did "cut and run" come from? Kerry.

You don't think that's going to be thrown in our faces in 2006-2008?

[TayTay]

1. It was used well before Kerry

It was used in Vietnam and it has been used in between that to justify keeping forces in harm's way in an unpopular cause.

We need to get out of Iraq. Kerry is helping on that.

[MercutioATC]

4. As I said, he didn't invent the phrase...

However, he DID use it to describe withdrawing troops from Iraq back when he was pro-Iraq-war...

...and I think that's going to turn out to be a real disservice to us.

[TayTay]

19. No, people who don't vote for withdrawal will be a disservice to us

Kerry has actually travelled the path that the American people have on this war. He should explain his thinking that led him to where he is now. I don't think the American people will respond at the voting box with appeals to them to 'fess up and admit you are wrong, wear sack cloth and ashes and say you were wrong a million times and then we will let you be against this war."

That is truly a dumb and silly way to go. We need to convince people to vote for a change in Iraq, not give them yet another reason to dislike those smarmy liberals who only want purity in their candidates and voters.

[MercutioATC]

21. Alternately, we could elect leaders with foresight...

I know it's a lot to ask, but it WOULD solve the problems we keep having with our "leaders" Monday-morning quarterbacking...

[TayTay]

28. And we could elect leaders who have been

consistent on support for civil rights, the environment, for the American middle class and so forth. Candidates with life-time ratings from the ADL of 92%. Candidates with incredibly great enironmental voting records from the LCV. Candidates who have investigated corruption and incompetence for a life time.

But of course, that would require actually looking at the people involved, instead of empty sloganeering and posturing.

[LittleClarkie]

78. We need to elect leaders who have been hermetically sealed

with no chance to say or do anything that might be held against them.

A Tupperware candidate, as it were. kept out of public service and only occasionally burped to keep him fresh.

(weird mood today...)

[loyalsister]

39. He could convince me

But many people scratch their heads when he explains his thinking. He is not very good at that. He seems so entrenched in the decorum of the Senate that his comminication skills are not honed to communicate with everyman.
A representative who can speak more plainly and more universally has greater potential to effectively make the case.

[TayTay]

47. Lord, yes. Let's not have anything as cloudy as this again

Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working.

I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.
-- John Kerry, june 21, 2006

Gawd, what is that man trying to say. I just can't understand all those high-falutin words of his. Is he trying to say that we should stay in Iraq or go? I can't figure it out. I wish he would clearly state what he means. This could be important. Do you think he is for it or against it?

[MercutioATC]

54. "I voted for it before I voted against it."

To people who had followed the issue, that statement made sense.

To the other 99% of the voting population, he sounded like an indecisive idiot.


Kerry DOES have trouble communicating at times.

[TayTay]

64. That is a meaningless statement

I could go through the records of any public official in America, past or present, and pull out murky statements. All people have trouble communicating sometimes.

Kerry is actually quite good with words. But you are right, you do have to pay attention. But isn't that the point, we need to pay attention.

"... it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office."
April 22, 2006

Yeah, he should work on his clarity, I ca't quite figure out what he is saying here. Attention must be paid.

[Dr Ron]

112. Only because it was cut and quoted out of context

The actual speech where this was said was well received by the audience. You could cut little bits and pieces of anyone's speeches and come up with things which sound idiotic out of context.

The Republican Noise Machine is highly skilled at avoiding talk about the real issues by using tactics such as this.

We expect this from them, but why help them out by repeating their distortions?

[Dr Ron]

118. An example of his ability at communicating

From the Q&A session after the speech quoted here:

"David Hamburg, Carnegie Corporation and Cornell Medical College. Senator, that's one of the finest foreign policy speeches I've heard, and I've heard a lot."

Sounds like he communicated pretty well that day.

[MercutioATC]

127. You're serious?? Somebody saying "I liked your speech" is your evidence

that Kerry communicates well with ordinary people...especially in light of the source of the praise???

[Dr Ron]

128. Just one point--but a significant one

Comments here are claiming that his old speeches would be harmful and that he cannot communicate. This is just one example of his ability to communicate.

As for communicating with the "ordinary people" there are also many examples of that. One example is all the town hall meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2003 and 2004 which resulted in Kerry coming from way behind in the polls to win decisively in the caucuses and primaries.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. Well, he makes his point eventually, certainly,

and it's a good one.

But he could have made exactly the same point in about a third as many words without appreciable loss of impact.

John Kerry has many virtues, put if ability to express himself succinctly is one of them then he was not demonstrating it in the paragraph you quote.

Inability to do so isn't at all failing in a president, but it arguably is in a candidate; if the above is typical of his mode of speaking (I'm from the UK, I haven't followed him that closely) then it's a factor against choosing him as one, although not necessarily a terribly important one.

[TayTay]

160. It is typical of a formal speech

in which you argue a point and use language to illustrate that point.

In his regular, off-the-senate-floor speaking style, he has a modified Yankee accent. (He drops the 'g's at the end of words, says 'ain't' and has the same broad 'a' sound as the I do or the guy who delivers newspapers or works in the accounting office does. I say 'Ahnt.' So does he. I try not to chop off words in formal speech. I do so all the time in converational American eastern seaboard English.)

Geesh! Now you hate the formal speeches and the casual speech. I would hate to see the type of candidate you do like. They would probably be so brief that they would come off as caustic and uninterested in their own thoughts.

I have heard of picky people, but this is ridiculous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

167. "Mode of speech" rather than "candidate".

There are plenty of American politicians I like as candidates; Kerry would be one of them.

The mode of speech that I personally would like to see and the one I think a candidate would be best advised to adopt are not the same, incidentally - I'm a mathematician, and I'd like to see political discourse reduced to something as much like propositional logic as possible - a sequence of bullet points, starting with statements of assupmtions and working step by step to a conclusion, with lots of clarifiers like "on average", "in most cases" "the bottom 50%", and so forth. A candidate who talked like that wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning an election, though - people would assume they were taking the piss.

I do think that slightly fewer words per point than in the speech you quoted would be more effective, though.

[Virginia Dare]

94. See, this is what I don't get...

Bush can spew any feeble-brained, drug-addled, non-sensical horseshit that pops into his head and the press never bats an eye.

Kerry gets pilloried because he doesn't speak plainly enough?

:shrug:

[rodeodance]

5. nothing wrong with doing a reasoned reassessment (like Kerry is doing).

and he is helping us get our troops out of harms way. I support these moves.

[MercutioATC]

7. Then he needs to say - every time - that he was wrong before.

Otherwise, it comes off as just saying what's politically advantageous.


Wouldn't it be nice to have leaders who actually LED instead of Monday-morning quarterbacking?

[saracat]

48. he HAS said it. You just aren't listening and just don't like him.

You are entitled to your opinion but your judgement is unfair. No one is doing more to end this war and stand up to this Administration than Kerry . He is owed a dept of gratitude whatever one thinks of his campaign. He has taken the lead on everything from ALito to Iraq while some of the more lionized Senators have sat on their haunches! He is hardly a "Monday morning quaterback"!

[Mr_Spock]

2. Who cares - we will just attack

No more defensive stance from me.

[Terran1212]

3. I don't support his Senate seat

I wish it went to a true progressive or liberal who was taking these stances long before they were politcally favorable.

[karynnj]

11. Your profile says you are from GA

It seems that MA disagrees and has re-elected him 3 times. I assume if he opts to run for re-election to the Senate rather than President, the Republicans would have trouble getting a serious candidate to run against him. Rommney chickened out in 2002.

Maybe you should work in your state to get better than Isaccson and Chambliss.

[blm]

34. HAHAH.... liberals are not anti-corruption anymore?

Name the lawmaker with a better record of investigating and exposing government corruption than John Kerry.

[saracat]

50. Have you even looked at hia voting record , other than IWAR?

There is NO more liberal Senator than Kerry! Try doing a little research before you decide about someone's "progressive" credentials..

[Zodiak]

88. Harkin and Boxer have a more progressive voting record.

John is number three, but I get your point.

[Blaukraut]

105. I do, and unlike you, I am from Massachusetts.

As to a real progressive; it would behoove you read up on John Kerry's senate record. You, from Georgia, want MY state to elect a 'real progressive'? Thanks, but we're way ahead of you with two of the most progressive senators in congress.

[Mass]

149. The good news is that I do support him and I get to vote in MA, contrarely

to you.

[WI_DEM]

6. the problem with Kerry

is that he really does have alot of flip flops in his past which will come back to haunt him, but then again I guess that could be said for almost any politician.

[karynnj]

14. That's actually not true

If you look at every comment any politician has ever made, you will find comments like this.

In addition, Bush leaving then would be leaving to avoid nation building and reconstruction when those were doable. The situation had more promise then.

[blm]

18. HORSE - - - You ACCEPT that Kerry's 2004 plan for Jan 2005 Iraq deals with

the exact same circumstances as June 2006 Iraq where 3 elections have been held and civil war is occurring?

I think that is GIVING IN TO AND USING FOCKING IMMATURE RW RADIO REASONING!!!!!

I'd like to see you explain how they are the same.

[TayTay]

22. Nice to see some people buy RW talking points

in a forum for Democrats. I wonder if I went back through your record on DU and found inconsistencies and if I posted them, if you would think that was fair. (I could skip around and find only diametrically opposed posts and not put in the thinking that went into any changes. That would be both right and fair, don't you think?)

[MercutioATC]

29. Why is every dissenting opinion a "RW talking point"?

"We undermine the (party) at our own peril"

Now THAT'S a "RW talking point"....courtesy of DINO Joe.

[TayTay]

44. It is echoing RW taling points to say that

Democrats are indecisve and flip-flop on the issues. It is used a way to get the press to marginalize and dismiss genuine Democratic issues and concerns and to get the people to regard all Democrats as useless and wishy-washy.

Haven't you been paying attention? There is a book out on this called Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert that makes just this point, the RW talking points are put out to undermine Dems. You should read it. It's a great book.

[RangerSmith]

81. What Dem's need to be paying attention to

is whether or not the talking points work or not, ie election results and then actually address them.

Just because we don't like the tactics doesn't mean they aren't being successfully used to beat us.

[Virginia Dare]

103. It wasn't a dissenting opinion..

you took a quote that John Kerry made before the 2004 election, twisted it around and came up with a hypothetical right wing talking point to trash him with it.

[MercutioATC]

115. Post #113 has the full text. My point remains unchanged.

[Mass]

151. As you said, it is not a problem with Kerry. It is that good people ..

are able to recognize their errors. Only idiots dont.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. lots of things are thrown in our faces, but

I sure as HELL would rather set my path behind someone who is human, admits being wrong,(everyone is sometimes, few admit it) and isn't so stuck in their own version of how it must be than follow someone to stubborn to admit they have been a major screw up, and can't think of what they'd do differently, or regret, with the exception of 'turns of phrase'- "Dead or Alive"

We have a choice America....

We can be humble and admit we make terrible mistakes, mistakes that cause great harm, even when intentions might (benefit of the doubt) have been 'noble'- or 'good'- but that like every other nation in the world, we are sometimes WRONG-

Or we can continue to live in denial, and let pride, and appearances, and the bogus pretense that we are never wrong, never make mistakes, never do the wrong thing, keep us stuck in a continual march towards never ending death, destruction, and despair-

What is it gonna be?

It takes a truly great 'person/nation/entity' to admit being wrong- to ask pardon, and to seek every means possible to remedy the situation.

Are 'we' big enough? or simply hiding behind our mask??? What is America really made of???
Big Talk? Big sticks-? strong arm tactics?

or people who truly mean what was claimed when this nation was formed?

[still_one]

9. Forget about Kerry,Clinton, and Biden. We need new blood

Kerry had his chance, it is time for someone else

Is Kerry the best we have to offer? Do we not have anyone without baggage?

[MercutioATC]

12. Amen.

If for no other reason than they won't have decades of bad decisions to use against them.

[blm]

20. That's using RW RADIO REASONING instead of using intellect to counter

the spin.

Way to give in boys.

[MercutioATC]

24. No, it's encouraging us to look for some new blood.

Personally, I think that's the "intellectual" way to solve the problems we've been having.

Advocating change is not "giving in".

[blm]

31. Make sure your new somebody has a REAL record as an OPEN BOOK

Government Democrat and will push for public financing of campaigns.

I say the only Dem who WILL win is the one who works to expose machine fraud and works to secure the machines before the vote.

And that person will DESERVE it.

[still_one]

57. Not all Democrats in Congress are for public Financing of elections

you are correct that would be a big step to fair elections. The one who has spoken the loudest on that has been Russ Feingold, but I do NOT think the public even cares about it

[karynnj]

59. In reality, we won't suddenly find new blood

There is really a pretty limited set of people with the expertise, experience and stature to run. It's true someone can appear to come from nowhere to people not following the polical scene - but other than those who were or are Governors, Senators, House leadership or top Generals - who has won a nomination or even come close. That's a set that's likely less than, at most, 200 Democrats. (less when you elimate those too lightweight, too new, too old (Byrd will not get the nod).

The primaries will test these people. Oh, as they all speak - the Republicans will take comments out of context.

[MercutioATC]

67. We find it all of the time...

Hackett, Lamont...there's no shortake of new people with new energy to bring to the party.

Do they always have the "stature"? No. But I think that can be a positive.

Give me a candidate with some common-sense ideas who speaks plainly, give him/her the support they need, and I say we have a winner.

[karynnj]

153. Not as President

As to Hackett, he may illustrate the problem of pushing an unknown quantity. In the last several weeks. I heard Hackett at guesting for Jerry Springer. He defines himself as a Goldwater Democrat. His comments on Congressmen and Senators was beyond cynical. He was absolutely obnoxious one day when he was interviewing a bubblehead who worked as a staffer for Dewine. He then extrapolated her problems with Dewine not caring for his constituents to all politicians. When a caller said that she had spoken to her congressman's staffers and that they were very helpful and that they were the right people (rather than Kuchinich himself) to help - she was told off. (Also he made a pretty sexist remark. The caller had said that the Dewine staffer seemed incapable of putting two sentences together, Hackett responded that with her looks, she didn't have to.

All and all, he was totally obnoxious. In 2005, all people knew was he fought in Iraq, he hated Bush, and he called Bush a chicken hawk. I have heard no ideas from him that can be called common-sense.

[still_one]

55. really, are you saying that is all we have?

I wonder who is spinning the RW propaganda, because that is exactly what THEY are spinning that the only possibilities that the Democrats have are Hillary/Kerry, or same names.

[blm]

71. I'm talking about your "baggage" claim. There is no baggage with Kerry

that wasn't invented by the RW. And if you gave into the BAGGAGE they invented about Kerry then you think that STOPS them from being successful with the next Dem target?

[still_one]

74. There is controversy, that detracts from real issues

Do I want to hear swift puke lies about his war record, or do I want to deal with today's issues

That is what will happen whether we want it or not. Things might have been different if he dealt with it strongly then, but it didn't happen.

[blm]

77. It happened - you know it happened - but it's easy for you to hide behind

their success instead of acknowledging that the "success" was orchestrated by the media.

Now that swifts have exhausted their claims and the Naval records are fully exposed, and a book attacking the swifts is on the way from other vets and POWs furious at the lies they told, what are they going to latch onto next?

Why be so timid? You know the next Dem will be in a similar gauntlet - but then you get to start fresh with new invented scandals or exaggerated real ones.

You want someone who's never run one before - so how wise is that?

[karynnj]

154. Not to mention that Republican Senator Warner

who was the Secretary of the Navy in 1969 said ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE that he personally reviewed Kerry's Siver Star (like as such high medals) and that Kerry earned it. As Nixon is dead, Warner is the highest person from Kerry's line of command who is still alive.

That he is a Republican saying this should give it credence. Among the RW, they will choose to believe their lies, but that is what they are.

[TayTay]

23. Ahm, yes he actually is

His record on the environment, civil rights, fighting for the middle class and for veterans is outstanding.

We could always go out and get more Leibermans. Maybe that would satisfy people.

[Rude Horner]

10. Personally, I'm getting tired of the phrase "flip-flop"

What the fuck is so bad with someone who changes their mind, based on different circumstances or times? God, I'd give my right nut for a president who changed his fucking mind once in a while, instead of "continuing the course" when things have turned to shit!

There's nothing wrong with people changing their mind, and we need to quit attacking people who do. That's my humble opinion.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. bingo- only fools and tyrants refuse to admit imperfections.

And the world is full of them-

Me, I've eaten more than my share of crow pie, but I'm smart enough to know its better to admit being wrong, than to become proficient at it.

[AtomicKitten]

26. I agree.

In fact, it shows thought process, the ability to assimilate new information. Something Tex-Mess is incapable of doing, the punchline of jokes, but not very funny.

However, Karl Rove has developed the most insidious of political strategies, attacking an adversary's strength. That's attack, attack, attack, attack.

Cut and run is this election cycle's attack buzzphrase.
Flip-flopping was last cycle's buzzword.

But these buzzwords are recycled again and again. The first Tex-Mess used flip-flop all the time in his attack speeches.

And Kerry has time and time again stepped into a big steaming pile of it. It's not right, it's not decent, but it's the way they play their dirty game of politics.

John Kerry is up to his knees in this quagmire carefully set by none other than Karl Rove, and I don't think he has the chutzpah to climb his way out, not the way Bill Clinton did or could.

[karynnj]

69. He doesn't have the chutzpah*, but he has the character

the strength and the intelligence to do so - and has made strides on it. Although the RW attacked Clinton, Rove didn't. Even looking at dollars spent, Kerry had more stuff thrown at him than anyone. Add in that the media which has become more conservative since 1980 was harder on Democrats in 2004 than in 2000 than in 1992.


You've explained Southerners, so let me (a NYC area Jew) help on this really really useful Yiddish word - that fits so many Bush things says or does. (please don't take as negative.)

*chutzpa: (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity

This is a really good yiddish word - but would be used like "Bush had the chutzpah to say he was the peace President. "

[AtomicKitten]

79. Suggested reading.

"The Hunting of the President."

Rove, in fact, was indeed a player back then, as well as Roger Aisles and other particularly nasty sorts. Clinton was pilloried relentlessly contrary to your efforts to play the my-candidate-was-poo'd-on-more game.

I have never nor would ever presume to speak for Southerners; I'm a latte-drinking, born and bred California girl.

Chutzpah is used interchangeably for audacity in literary terms which is precisely what I intended in an ironic sense.

But I know how Kerry fans love to lecture the rest of us dolts here at DU. :)

[karynnj]

83. Sorry about misstating your geographic area

However, in a community where the word is used often, I have never heard it used without the connotation of doing something that defies logic. (by community I mean NY/NJ Jews, not Kerry supporters.) The usage seemed jarring to me - and it was absolutely not clear you were going for irony. "in literary terms"??????????? But, whatever!

[AtomicKitten]

87. meaning it's language that has been assimilated into the mainstream*

And the irony had to do with the notion that Dems would actually have the audacity to fight back.

* example: kindergarten

[karynnj]

156. It has been assimilated - but with a meaning

and it really doesn't fit here. There is no way in which Kerry responding to false charges can be chutzpah. It is absolutely his right to do so.

[AtomicKitten]

158. ok, listen up

I used it, it's my word. It expresses entirely and appropriately with what I wanted and intended to say. The irony is that nobody expects Dems to fight back. I was being ironic.

Tell you what, you pick your words and I'll pick mine. Kay?

[karynnj]

163. create your own language for all I care

I will not respond further on this. I simply thought you might not know the word well - because it absolutely does not fit - even in an ironic sense.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. I'm sick to death of *chutzpa- its time for

some humility and class-

Substance over stuffed shit heads?-

Or is that too much to ask from this fucked up image idol crazed country?

If we really do 'buy' our leaders because of what they package themselves as, then damn it- we've bought ourselves this fresh hell.

[halobeam]

13. He has to be simple

stating, he was wrong then, and that he can admit it, unlike some other politicians... and we all know who they are.



End of story. It should be refreshing to most people to hear THAT in politics.

[MercutioATC]

17. Agreed

He can mitigate the damage if he states EVERY TIME that he was wrong before. Unless he does, it'll continue to be used against him (and us).

[TayTay]

25. How silly

Is that for the memory impaired or for the people who won't listen anyway.

What a crock of shit.

[MercutioATC]

32. It may be a "crock of shit" but it's an issue.

...an issue created because we elect leaders who react instead of leading.

As much as I think Kucinich is a little weird, he had the foresight to lead from the beginning...and he won't be facing issues like this because of that.

[TayTay]

36. Really, so standing up in the Senate and getting the Amendment

to the floor, taking the heat from the Rethugs, who ignored everyone else with their name on this amendment to focus on smearing Kerry and opposing the leaders in his own party is not showing both spine and leadership?

This is why this thread is a crock of shit and a joke.

BTW, remember the Alito filibuster. I don't remember anyone else in the Senate rushing to propose that in the Senate. I think they let Kerry do it and let Kerry take all the brickbats for it as well.

That is leadership. That is courage and that is why I am proud to have Kerry as my Senator.

[mavoix]

42. As much as I think Kucinich is a little weird,

Kucinich is not 'weird'. What he is is sincere, unaffected and direct. I guess that's weird in today's society. His problem is that he doesn't have the panache that you need to get ahead in the arenas of Washington DC or Madison Avenue.

[MercutioATC]

C'mon...he's a LITTLE weird...

Like I said, that doesn't stop him from being a real leader, but he IS slightly strange at times, IMO.

[blm]

51. Everybody is - - and anyone who thinks they are not is even stranger.

,

[blm]

16. How did YOU expect Kerry's plan for UN and NATO to come in, would happen?

The only way to make it happen in 2005 was for stabilization of Iraq when Kerry took over in Jan 2005.

Why you think Jan 2005 is the same as June 2006 is a MYSTERY.

[oasis]

27. In 2003, "a premature withdrawal" could be perceived as "cut and run".

It's 2006, and the vast majority of Americans want our troops out.

"Premature" is no longer operable terminology in today's context.

[MercutioATC]

30. He shouldn't have voted to send us there in the first place...

[blm]

33. Yeah - he should have NOT NEGOTIATED for IWR at all so we'd be in WW3

right now because Bush wanted to attack Iran and Syria after Baghdad fell.

Damn those Dems who worked to get a better bill to vote for.

[MercutioATC]

35. But when you compromise on issues like this, you lose all credibility.

Which is exactly why our party is where it is right now (not just Kerry, MOST of them).

[blm]

43. So sez unthinking people who drive 35 at ALL TIMES and never

adjust their speed under changing conditions.

[XanaDUer]

130. Good one!

:D

[MH1]

60. HA HA HA HA

The prior poster addresses your original argument directly, so you just move to the next point on your "Bashing John Kerry Talking Points" list.

:rofl:

[Virginia Dare]

102. I agree with you there...

but guess what, he did, along with alot of other Democrats and now we're there. Water under the bridge. So, who's got the best plan to get us out? What if it's John Kerry?

[emulatorloo]

37. Nominated for most idiotic divisive thread I've read today

So Kerry and others are working hard to get us out of Iraq and you come up with this nonsense?

As I say, nominating for greatest page.

[MercutioATC]

38. I love you, too...

:hug:

[emulatorloo]

41. PS "cut and run" is a naval term, first newspaper citation found in 1704

:toast: I am sure you are lovable, but your thread is idiotic.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/106825.html


Cut and run
Meaning

To depart quickly.

Origin

Many phrases are attributed to seafaring but a good proportion of them turn out not to have a naval origin. For example, above board and cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. Cut and run is naval through. The original meaning relates to leaving port in a hurry by cutting the morring cable and running before the wind.

The first reference I can find to it is in the Boston News-Letter, 1704:

"Cap. Vaughn rode by said Ship, but cut & run."

A later reference, from 'Rigging & Seamanship', 1794, defines the term:

"To Cut and run, to cut the cable and make sail instantly, without waiting to weigh anchor."

[Toucano]

45. Thank you for the citation.

I agree that this thread is myopic.

[emulatorloo]

46. google is so damn handy, isn't it? EOM

[karynnj]

155. Can I second the nomination for most divisive

[blm]

40. YOU think June 2006 Iraq is the same as 2004? Kerry SHOULDN'T Have had

a plan in 2004 to bring in UN and NATO when he took office in Jan 2005?

Please explain.

[MercutioATC]

52. Examine the timeline and decide if this is "leadership"...

Senator X believes that Iraq is a threat to the U.S.

Senator X votes to give Congressional approval for a war against Iraq.

Senator X becomes disenchanted with the war.

Senator X argues that the war is a bad thing, but we can't have a fixed timeline for leaving.

Senator X proposes legislation calling for a fixed timeline for leaving Iraq.


Now, I'll agree that I WANT my elected officials to change their approach based on changing circumstances.

However, I'd RATHER have my elected officials be perceptive enough to make the right decision from the start (as Kucinich did) instead of having to constantly adjust their position based on new information.

[blm]

66. That's not an explanation for what a PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE should plan for

when he takes office in Jan 2005.

And Kerry was always against war UNLESS the diplomacy and weapon inspections were unsuccessful.

Black and white thinking is NOT strong governance.

Now - please EXPLAIN how a person expecting to take office on Jan 20, 2005 is supposed to NOT present a plan dealing with the facts on the ground AS THEY WOULD BE on Jan 20, 2005.

[MercutioATC]

110. I agree that he had to work with the situation at hand...

...however, it was a situation he helped create. There were Dems who didn't buy the "Iraq is a threat" rhetoric to the degree that would make them vote for Congressional approval for a war.

My contention is that Kerry has been reactionary about the war. It's good that he changes his position when the information changes, but I believe we need leaders who aren't willing to compromise just to get the lesser of two evils. We need somebody who's willing to stand on principle at times, without compromise...somebody who realizes that a few battles will be lost this way, but it's the only way to win the war.

[blm]

142. No one who supported IWR created that war. Bush was having war with or

without ANY resolution, and Kerry is no more a warmonger for IWR than Dean would be if Biden-Lugar passed - Bush would violate ANY RESOLUTION and the Downing Street Memos is testament to that.

Why people cling to the notion that IWR is the reason for war is just beyond me. As if everything we have learned since then hasn't proved enough that Bush was going in with or without it, or would violate ANY resolution that came out of congress.

[MercutioATC]

144. See, and we were getting through this without personal attacks until now..

We disagree. We KNOW we disagree because we've disagreed many times before.

However, until now (in this thread) we've managed to stick to the issue. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

[blm]

146. Adjusted - - but still there are important points that are never addressed

To blame the IWR and maintain a four year focus on it, you'd have to believe that it really was the reason we went to war.

[Dr Ron]

131. Not accurate account of Kerry's position

This is a total distortion of Kerry's position every step of the way.

Kerry do not believe that Iraq was definately a threat. He believed we could not ignore intelligence reports (later turned out to be fakeed) and needed to get the inspectors back in. He did not approve of going to war. Befrore the war he made it clear he was voting to give Bush the leverage to get the inspectors back in to find out for sure if there was a threat. He also made it clear he opposed going to war unless there was proof of an imminent threat. Before the war Kerry argued that Bush never proved we were endangered by WMD and argued that Bush should not go to war.

Whether to have a fixed timeline justifiably varies at different points.

Kerry was perceptive from the start--if you look at what he really said.

[MercutioATC]

134. It's a separate issue, but...

...the fact is that, regardless of his explanations, Kerry voted to give Congressional support for war based on the decision of an opposition-party hawk.

To me, that says one of two things about Kerry's vote:

1) It was politically advantageous, or

2) it was incredibly naive.

[Dr Ron]

135. Not an accurate assessment

The IWR vote has been rehashed so many times. I fail to see why opponents of the war go along with this distortion of events considering that it just plays into Bush's hands.

[MercutioATC]

137. Maybe not in your opinion, but it is in many others'.

Some of us don't consider it a distortion.

[aikoaiko]

49. I sort of agree with you.... too many liabilities to support for pres.

If he's all we got, I'll vote for him, but I'll expect for more years of another republican in office.

[Clarkie1]

53. Well, there's something to make us all a little more cynical this morning.

Kerry's not my favorite politician by a long shot, but I still hate to see that.

Of course it will be used against him and us.

[KingM34]

56. Count Me in the Cut and Run Crowd

It's sad that we've failed so badly in Iraq, but I think the scope of our failure is only going to grow as time goes on. IMHO, the best solution would be to carve Iraq into three separate nations, but this is not going to happen because it looks too much like failure. Barring that, the only thing we can do is declare victory and go home. We're going to do that eventually anyway and Iraq will fall into civil war and/or be taken over by another dictatorship. The question is only how many Americans will die in the meanwhile.

[dogday]

62. It beats the STAY n PAY crowd for sure

we are paying with our soldiers lives and our money and nothing, not a damn thing has changed... The fighting is just as bad as it ever was and will continue to be no matter what government is installed..

We are training Iraqi guards and they are turning around and killing our Soldiers and Nine Republican Senators want to give them amnesty for killing our troops that are training them??? That is a sad state of affairs and just goes to show we need to start withdrawal of our troops...

[KingM34]

65. I agree

I would vote for staying and finishing the job except for the little detail that we are still making things worse. I have yet to hear a single person give any scenario by which we win this thing.

[wiggs]

85. "STRUT AND SPIN"...as someone else suggested on DU today. nt

[Yollam]

58. Thanks for pointing this out.

Nothing could ever make me support Kerry for a second nomination, but that being said, I fully support him on this one, and it's the other dems and moderate repugs who are acting disgracefully in not rallying behind his and Feingold's proposal.

Seriously, I wouldn't hold my breath for Kerry to get a second nomination.

[LittleClarkie]

70. I don't care

I'll be jazzed about him even if he gets elected dog catcher. Everything doesn't revolve around 2008.

But I know, if he runs, who I will be voting for.

So vote for someone else and we'll see who wins... AFTER the 2006 elections.

[Yollam]

72. If I lived in Mass, I would vote for him as senator.

I just don't think he is viable enough to run for prez.

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

76. Can I have him as Attorney General then?

Sec of State?

Defense?

SOMEthing that uses his considerable experience?

[Yollam]

159. Ambassador to the UN?

There are a lot of things he would be great at - I honestly believe he would be a good president, too. But viability is another story. My sentimental fave in 04 was Kucinich, and I even sent him a few bucks but I never entertained any notions that he might win.

Unfortunately, the American people are less interested in the best candidate than they are the candidate who is:
1. Not ugly
2. won't raise taxes
3. From the south or midwest/west - definitely not the northeast
4. Is a guy they can have a beer with
5. Is a Christian-ish white male
6. Doesn't use big words or flowery prose too much
8.etc. etc. etc. every dumb, superficial rationale you can think of.




It sucks, really. Carol Mosely Braun would have been a much better president than Bush, as would Al Sharpton, as would any of the rest of the democratic pack. I've been highly critical of Kerry's campaign - and I honestly think it could have been run much better, but even considering the choice that the American people were given, the fact that the majority picked POS Bush says something very, very discouraging about our electorate - that they are foolish and shallow and unthinking beyond measure. Bush promised more debt, more war, more pain for the middle class and more giveaways to the rich, and by a margin of 3 million (give or take a few hundred thousand for GOP vote fraud) they picked POS Bush.

It should have been a landslide for Kerry. What a smack in the face that such a thoughtful, intelligent man could lose to someone so, ignorant, crass, corrupt, and just plain unlikeable. I honestly think that the thing that hurt him most was people's uncertainty about his position on war - not just the "voted for it, then voted against it" thing, but the fact that he went to Vietnam, but then became a vocal anti-war protester, he opposed the first Gulf War, but then voted for this one, and claimed to stand by his vote, but later reversed that. Even I'm not really quite sure where he stands. Personally, I think an unjust war is always unjust, and I wish he had simply stuck by his guns and kept a firm anti-war stance from Vietnam to now, with the exception of Afghanistan.

In that respect, at least Hilary has been consistent. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but the little minds of the voters demand it.

[LittleClarkie]

61. So vote for Kucinich in the primary then. I'll vote for Clark.

This Kerry fellow appears to have no personality at all. But really, I don't know much about him.

On the other hand, I like what Clark has been saying... well, at least one thing he said about the president not having a blank check to wage war. I'd said that too. So I'll vote for Clark.

Do you think he has a chance?

[blogslut]

63. Everything will be thrown in our faces

The pubs are desperate. Expect flying kitchen sinks and bullshit logic all summer.

[MercutioATC]

68. Granted, but do we have to make it EASY???

[blogslut]

73. Who is this collective we?

I get it. You don't like John Kerry.

The majority of the American people want the Iraq war to end. Cute phrases like flip-flop and cut-and-run won't play as well as they did 2 years ago. Too many deaths have happened since then.

[LittleClarkie]

75. It will always be easy, there is ALWAYS something that can be

thrown in our faces. They did it to Clinton, they did it to Gore, they did it to Kerry. The Daily Howler was very enlightening on that point.

What we don't do is defend our candidates properly. Sadly we almost agree with the MSM when they smear them. We slink off with our tails between our legs muttering "Gee, I guess you're right. Gore...Kerry... whoever really is a weak candidate... what were we thinking..."

We need to believe in ourselves and find ways to believe in our candidates. I didn't start off liking Kerry. But I was going to be damned if I was going to campaign with ABB. Didn't work for Dole, wasn't going to work for Kerry. You have to give people a reason to vote FOR someone.

The Dem establishment was pathetic this last election. They'd appear on news shows and not be able to defend anything. It was as if they took 2004 off, wrote it off as a loss before it started. Or whined that the candidate wasn't doing the right things, but then pointed in ten different directions when asked what he should be doing instead. "Oh my god we're gonna lose! Whatdowedowhatdowedo... iiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

If we do that to the next candidate, he/she'll lose too.

[ray of light]

82. Gosh...I think the dems should all just lay down and play dead if

we're going to not get jazzed up because of comments made prior to full facts were known.

What the heck...83 members of the Senate laid down yesterday and allowed the troops to get murdered.

You don't think we should get jazzed up to fight those people do you?

[LittleClarkie]

84. Or jazzed up about the 13 who voted for the Kerry/Feingold amendment

Gee, if I look back, I bet they said stuff.

[MercutioATC]

97. Did I suggest "laying down and playing dead"?

No, I suggested that we keep the ENTIRE picture in view...the good AND the bad.

[dailykoff]

86. Nice opposition research.

Where did you get it?

[MercutioATC]

93. MSNBC...the link's provided in the OP.

It's not "opposition research", it's an accurate qoute from the MSM.

[dailykoff]

99. It's a quote from an article of December 3, 2003.

You couldn't find it unless you were looking for dirt, in which case you're doing opposition research, or unless somebody gave it to you.

So which is it?

[MercutioATC]

108. I heard Republicans joking about it and I looked for myself.

Sure enough, it was there.

[dailykoff]

152. Which Republicans?

Just curious.

[Virginia Dare]

161. Little Repubby birdies...

or possibly the yellow elephants meeting in the room next door.

[MercutioATC]

165. Repubs at work.

[Dr Ron]

106. But not accurate report of Kerry's statement

This might as well be opposition research. The article is an inaccurate account of Kerry's speech.

There must be lots of articles on this speech available. Why use one which takes a statement out of context and gives a false impression of what Kerry was saying in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations?

[MercutioATC]

109. How is it out of context???

[Dr Ron]

111. Doesn't reflect what Kerry was actually saying

Kerrry had a long speech.By cherry picking certain comments, and by providing his own spin, the author of this article gives the impression that Kerry was saying something quite different from what he was actually saying.

[MercutioATC]

113. Here's the full text (from Kerry's website):

"I believe if the UN role is absolutely clear and substantively real, the Secretary General and members of the Security Council will support this course of action. But one thing is beyond doubt: we will continue to have difficulty persuading other countries, particularly those with meaningful military capabilities, to contribute troops and funds for reconstruction unless and until we vest real responsibility in the hands of the United Nations and the international community. I have said before - and I repeat today -- that the Bush Administration should swallow its pride and reverse course. But the evidence is strong that it lacks the wisdom or will to do so.

In fact, I fear that in the run up to the 2004 election the Administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut and run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election. I have called for the Administration to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. This could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Baathists. Security and political stability cannot be divorced. Security must come first and that is why it is so imperative to succeed in building a genuine coalition on the ground in Iraq..

An international effort in Iraq is indispensable, but only the start of the new era of alliances in which the United States must lead and re-engage the world.."


Doesn't that sound a lot like what Repubs are saying now?

"It'd be irresponsible to leave now"
"Let the coalition do its job"
"Democrats want to rush the withdrawl"


The smart money was NEVER on a succesful democracy in Iraq. Some Dem leaders knew that. The fact that Kerry didn't has put him in a perpetual defensive, reactionary posture. I think we can do better than that.

[Dr Ron]

116. That's not the full text

[MercutioATC]

121. Well, that's the text Kerry is using on his website...

...I'm assuming it's the most flattering part of the speech if he's using it on his own site.

[Dr Ron]

125. Still only a tiny section

This secion may be open to different interpretations, and might be looked at differently if we didn't read the spin in the MSNBC article.

[politicasista]

89. Can I play Trash Democrats Underground?

Nice flamebait.

:boring:

[MercutioATC]

96. Accurately quoting an influential Dem is "flamebait"?

If you can show where I've misquoted him or misrepresented anything he said, please let me know.

[Dr Ron]

107. Inaccurate article takes statement out of context

The article gives a quite different view of Kerry's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations than was actually said. Taking isolated statements out of context, along with spin which misrepresents Kerry's views, is as bad as misquoting him.

[Recursion]

90. Oh for pete's sake... what is this fetish of consistency people have?

Why, why, why, why, WHY do we consider it a bad thing if a politician's views are not exactly the same thing today that they were at some point in the past?

2004 was not 2006 -- and looking at that article, he appears to have said it in late 2003. That was pre-Fallujah. pre-Najaf. The whole world has changed since then. Why is it bad if he judged that we could still have a positive influence in Iraq in 2003, but doesn't think we can anymore in 2006?

[glitch]

92. just what I was thinking - many people susceptible to hobgoblins. :) nt

[liberalpragmatist]

132. Thank you

I remember around the '04 election, the Economist in a defense of Kerry from the charge of "flip-flopping" quoted a famous figure (was it John Meynard Keynes? I can't remember)

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

[Zodiak]

91. Two points:

1. This thread contributes nothing but fear of what the Republicans will say about us.

2. I don't give a shit about what Republicans are going to say about ANY candidate. They will say the most hateful, damaging shit they can and then the MSM will repeat it like the gospel. This will happen no matter what our strategy, so I do not bother to fear it.

[MercutioATC]

95. I'd rather have the facts than be unaware of obstacles ahead.

The fact is he said it.

The fact is Repubs are talking about it.

The fact is we'd be best served by being aware of this when we make decisions for 2008.

[Dr Ron]

120. And the fact is that this is a distortion of what he said

No matter who runs, they will similarly cherry pick old statements and take them out of context.

[MercutioATC]

122. Dr Ron, I can't respond to you a dozen times...read Post #113

This is the section of the speech that Kerry is using on his own website. If you feel there's something that Kerry missed in his posting, feel free to add it.

[Dr Ron]

129. See the entire speech rather than a tiny part

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6576/making_america_secure_again.html

[MercutioATC]

133. O.K....what's in the full text that's not in the excerpt I posted?

(the one from Kerry's website)

What part of the full text do you feel conveys some meaning that's not in the shorter version from Kerry's site?

[Dr Ron]

136. Read the fulll thing

This is a serious speech to the CFR, not just some simple sound bites. To do it justice you need to read the full speech, and consider the context (when it was given). This will show, for example, Kerry's stress on achieving the conditions which would allow the US to restore sovereignty to Iraq, turn this over to international bodies, and get out. Conditions since then have changed so obviously he's going to stress different factors in getting out.

The key point is that Kerry opposed getting into Iraq in the first place, and since then has concentrated on finding ways to get out of there.

[MercutioATC]

139. I DID read the full thing.

...and I understand what you're saying.

My point remains the same, however. It's a reactionary fix to a problem he helped create...much as his recent proposal was.

They can be good ideas (and, at times, they have been) but they're not examples of "leadership", IMO.

[Dr Ron]

143. Looks like you are going to call him reactionary no matter what he says

Getting out of Iraq is the iimportant thing

One reason the anti-war movement has been so weak and Republicans have dominated on the issue (despite being so wrong) is such division. Attacking someone like Kerry, who opposed going to war from the beginning and who has concentrated on getting out is a poor stragegy for parts of the anti-war movement to pursue.

Regardless of what Kerry's true position was, and regardless of what he says now, there are those among you who will persist in spreading the false mantra that "Kerry voted for the war" and continue to oppose everything Kerry says. How unfortunate.

[Dr Ron]

123. The fact is also that speeches such as this help

From the Q&A session after the speech:

"David Hamburg, Carnegie Corporation and Cornell Medical College. Senator, that's one of the finest foreign policy speeches I've heard, and I've heard a lot."

Those who look at news objectively will see favorable things in reviewing this and Kerry's other speeches.

Those who want to smear will find ways to twist what he said, but can also do this with every other candidate.

[ProSense]

147. The fact is you are adding a negative spin to the statement!

"...that's going to be thrown in our faces in 2006-2008?" Why? The Republican are not talking about this statement, but you're assuming they will! Their "cut and run" spin is to keep the facts from getting out! They want to smear critics of the invasion/occupation.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Kerry's statement at the time based on the facts and Bush's pattern of deception.

At the time this statement was made, the only thing that had happened in Iraq was Bush's war. He bombed the country was bombed to pieces and created a catastrophe: No electricity, basic services, nothing, just a country devastated by weeks of bombing and mired in conflict. Bush screwed up! Nothing could happen. What would have happened if he had abandoned Iraq, done nothing more after destroying the country?

Bush could have been trying to devise a scheme by which to secure the oil fields and leave Iraq in chaos long enough to establish America's permanent presence. In fact, there were questions as to why the interest in securing the oils fields, but none is securing the historic treasures (which were looted along with hospitals and other institutions), weapons cache and other vital interests.

Throughout that time, Kerry was pushing for Bush to do the right thing, even as the many Americans were cheering on the war and Repubs were fully behind Bush. Iraq's first election didn't happen until more than a year later.

So Kerry's statement made perfect sense. Bush destroyed the country and was obligated to at least restore basic services and order. Remember, the Iraqis were innocent and devastated victims of a war-zealous American president, one who could have very well "cut and run."

Since Kerry's statement, there have been many instances of Bush and his administration making excuses about why things couldn't/can't happen. (Cut and run: He tried to do it in New Orleans after failing to respond appropriately before, during and after the hurricane.)

Unfortunately, Bush's stay the course policy in Iraq has resulted in chaos, civil war, but at least Iraqis are in place to take over the reins of putting their country back on the right track---one they can determine for themselves. Time for Americans to leave.

[Virginia Dare]

98. Can the swift-boating please stop?

So what if it gets thrown up in his face? What's he doing now?

Let's start judging people by their current actions, at least let's put a heavier emphasis on the present.

I think we Democrats are all well aware of what kind of person John Kerry is, and have debated it ad nauseum.

Fine, you like him or you don't. But let's stop trashing him, it serves no good purpose.

[gully]

100. I'm excited about Kerry's current position, but not about him running

in 2008.

[politicasista]

101. He is focused on 2006 like we all should be n/t

[Dr Ron]

104. Article quoted is not an accurate account of Kerry's speech

Kerry's address to the Council on Foreign Relations discussed Iraq in terms of transfering sovereignty back to Iraq and getting the UN more involved. This article takes comments from Kerry out of context and does not give an accurate description of his actual speech.

[MercutioATC]

114. See post #113. Full text is there.

[Dr Ron]

119. No, it's a tiny section of the speech

[MercutioATC]

124. It's what Kerry used on his own website.

If you think he left something out, feel free to add it.

[Dr Ron]

126. It's just a tiny section

Check out his full speech. Of course it is also necesary to consider when it was given:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6576/making_america_secure_again.html

[seabeyond]

117. hooya... lets beat him up, not praise, remember when he said????

what two years ago. you think anything has happened in say, oh.... two years. would any sane reasonable intelligent, rational person stay the course....well, saying doing the same thing as events changfe. or do they look at change and find appropriate solution for appropriate time

no no what we do is beat up kerry once again and if not for now then lets go into the dark and distant past

geeeeeeez

[sweetheart]

138. Clean slate

he's forgiven. You're forgiven. The people who fight on the side where jesus
would really be living were he alive, where krishna would be dancing, will
forever celibrate the kingdom of heaven, to forgive and be forgiven.

But can we have a clean discussion when its relevant after november.

He's a politician on our side and he's saying the right thing for now, when
it was "then", had they committed half a million troops for a full occupation,
none of this would have happened. The whole war smacks of incompetence from
the getgo, and kerry is NOT at fault. He was right, in his general's command,
that after the war had been committed, a full occupation would have been the
way to bring about instant standing down, and civil nation establishment.

But the bush strategy of ungovernable chaotic entities, as is shown by his
support of the fool militias in sudan, shows him backing the real felons constistently
in armed conflict, the high-risk revolutionaries, at the cost of trillions and
a loss of a pax americana that was worth a quintillion, a century without war is
squandered for a facist empire and a civil response.

Let kerry be the actor he is, and you be the actor you are, and lets get with
platform politics, and coalition building, and having all the party together
in an objective of ending the wars and a fair deal for the poor. Goddam,
Edwards is on to that, and he's right on, with his sharp legal mind, i'd
love to read his off-the-record views on how to sort out the drugs war.

KALICHAKRA Solstice

Om the lords grace, to be forgiven the past and set our valiant knights on the foe.

[MercutioATC]

141. Fair enough.

I'm just frustrated at the direction our party has taken and the type of politician we've been supporting. However...


Clean slate. I won't mention it again.

[blm]

148. Ever stop to realize that if that "politician" who took on many an

unpopular and risky battle, was probably responsible for pushing back the fascists' advantage a good 15 years because of his efforts?

Where would this country be and how much would any of US really know if there was no Kerry to investigate and expose IranContra? Illegal wars in Central America? BCCI? CIA drugrunning? The financial networks of global terror?

There would have been no Clinton in 92. And with the telecom act completely drafted by GOPs, we'd have been completely screwed by 96.

[MercutioATC]

150. As I said, I'm leaving it alone.

I never said that he hasn't done good in the past, just that I believe he's been dead wrong on this issue.


enough said.

[blm]

162. Hey, few have the expertise to even craft a withdrawal plan - you don't

like his plan, and think it's dead wrong, fine - just say so without all the trumped up out-of-context reaches into past statements given during an earlier phase of a war. But, this would be a worse off situation if it was Kerry who was shut up because YOU think his withdrawal efforts are dead wrong.

[CTLawGuy]

145. well that was

"running-for-president" Kerry.

2006 features regular Kerry.

[Cocoa]

157. every candidate has things they'll throw in our faces

so that's not a very valuable way to think about our candidates.

[rucky]

164. This is why you should always speak your mind & vote your conscience.

instead of trying to figure out what's popular or proper to say and do at the time.

The tide turned, but Kerry's words remain on the record.

[politicasista]

166. The bottom line is that this is a divisive thread

that only plays right into the hands of the Rove and the repukes.