Salon War Room: Kerry Takes on Bolton

[Dr Ron]

Hand-to-hand combat over Bolton

We can't say whether it's unprecedented, but we can certainly say it's uncommon: A U.S. senator taking out ads in another senator's state to sway a vote on a presidential nominee. That's what John Kerry is doing today. The target is Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee -- and, more directly, John Bolton. Confirmation hearings begin today for the man George W. Bush has nominated to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Kerry is doing everything he can to get Chafee to join Democrats in opposing Bolton's appointment. The Republicans have the numbers to confirm Bolton if he gets to the Senate floor, but Bolton has to get there first. If Democrats can get one Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against Bolton, his nomination will die in committee.

Chafee, who says publicly that he's non-committal, is the Democrats' best hope, and that's why visitors to Rhode Island Web sites this week will find ads from johnkerry.com, urging a no vote on Bolton's confirmation. In an email to reporters this morning, Kerry spokeswoman Katharine Lister said that Kerry will also be running ads on some blogs and emailing his supporters in Rhode Island.

In an email that went out to Rhode Island residents registered with Kerry's Web site, the Massachusetts senator asked, "In his heart, do you think Senator Lincoln Chafee thinks it is wise to award high government posts to those who have been the architects of some of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of the last four years?"

Full entry at:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

also at Light Up The Darkness:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=696

Other Kerry news on LUTD today on raising money for Democrats for 2005 and 2006, and proposal to increase benefits for military families
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp

[KoKo]

1. That's indeed a great piece of news! Thanks!

[blm]

2. Any Rhode Island DUers MUST contact Chaffee's office.

It would help if all of us do it, but definitely the Rhode Island contingent. Call any relatives there, too.

The future of the UN depends on this vote.

[AuntiBush]

70. Really. We can't depend on our SO-CALLED Liberal Media!

Another BS propaganda crapola!

[seabeyond]

3. we could only getting message out paying for ad

where as bush uses the tax payers money to pay for the reporter to spew his lies. interesting

[Dr Ron]

4. They'd get the message out without taxpayers money

The use of taxpayers money is the more unethical aspect from Republicans, but not the major way they would get the message out. Even if they totally stopped using taxpayer's money for pr, they would still get their message out over talk radio and cable news.

If a Democratic President had a nominee they wanted to block, they'd demonize him by having talk radio and cable news spewing the same lies about the person day after day, plus the right wing print media would also report similar stories making them look more credible.

[seabeyond]

5. you are right

i recognize, lol jsut got turned to the paying and paying part

[Dr Fate]

6. I think going around the media like this can be a good thing.

Although Kerry could go on cable shows more & get the message out for free.

Good job, John- keep it up.

[cestpaspossible]

9. What makes you think

that the corporations that control who goes on those shows want to give Kerry a forum to air his views?

Do you really think it is a coincidence that the Democrat who most often appears on cable shows is Joe Leiberman? Do you think he's the only one asking to appear so often?

[Dr Fate]

11. Which Cable news or debate shows have ever refused to interview Kerry???

Kerry could go on any show he wanted-anytime- I cant imagine any show tunring down a slot for Kerry.

If they really are refusing him equal time, I'd like to hear him speak out loudly and expose that- he could easily go on say, Al franken and say "Wolf Blitzer refuses to give me airtime- I'd love for your audience to e-mail CNN and ask them why."

I see a lot of DUers assuming that no one gives Kerry equal time on news & debate shows- but I've seen no proof.

having said that, I DO like the ads, and I think this method of getting out info will work to a certain extent.

[cestpaspossible]

12. I'm sure they all have. Since you didn't answer my question

I'll assume you disagree. But I'll still ask it again.

What makes you think that the corporations that control who goes on those shows want to give Kerry a forum to air his views?

[Dr Fate]

13. For one thing, I've never heard Kerry say he has been turned down.

When I hear Kerry or whoever go on Air America, or the Daily Show or even on the DNC website or emails and make the claim that CNN, FOX and MSNBC are refusing them equal time on interview shows, then I'll believe it.

Otherwise, it's only a claim that DUers make.

The corporate media does not really want to give Kerry a forum- probably correct- but I have never heard of them actaully refusing him interviews or slots on the various debate shows.

Until I see some proof, or at the least, hear DEMs verify this, I'll assume it is not true.

Do you have some kind of proof that this is really happening?- I'll even accept a mere accusation by Kerry.

[kerrygoddess]

16. And where is the DNC in backing up what Kerry is doing?

I don't see the DNC rushing to support JK. He's more consistent that Reid is at this point yet, the DNC does nothing.

[Dr Fate]

19. He sends me e-mails every week. He never mentioned this even once.

If the media is refusing him interviews or slots on debate shows - he needs to shout out about this-that is pure censorship- I will certainly help him make some noise about this if it's true- but I need to hear him say it b/f I start making wild accusations.

[AuntiBush]

71. I couldn't agree more.

What's up with that??

The 1 that Should have Been - But we we're ROBBED!

[cestpaspossible]

17. So you admit that the corporatists have a motive

to deny forceful Democrats a forum, yet you believe that the reason Joe Leiberman is the one who appears the most is because he is the one who asks to appear the most?

Well, when there is no evidence one way or the other, you can for yourself choose which explanation seems the most likely.

I have chosen the explanation that Kerry, Dean and other Dems who are able to make a forceful case don't appear more often on cable news shows because the corporations that control the content of those shows don't believe it is in their interest to put them on. More profit in letting the Republicans face only token opposition from Joe Leiberman, Ben Nelson, or Jane Harman.

You, if I understand you correctly, believe that Dean, Kerry, Boxer et al just aren't asking to appear.

I find that explanation extremely far fetched, but I can no more prove that it is untrue than you can prove that my explanation is untrue.

[Dr Fate]

20. I dont need to prove it- I merely need to hear Kerry or Dean SAY IT.

I'd take their word for it- if this is happening, they need to inform their base that this is happening.

If it's true, then why are they not talking about it in the forums where they certainly do have access- like Air America, or in their e-mail messages?

And I never once mentioned Boxer- I *DO* believe that the media would turn her down for air-time- but Kerry, Obama, Hilary or Dean? I find that hard to believe.

You are the one accusing media shows of refusing to let Kerry go on debate shows- I need some proof before I accept that.

[cestpaspossible]

22. Yeah but your explanation so totally far fetched

I mean it's so ridiculous to believe that they don't want appear on television that I actually have a hard time believing that you seriously believe the position you are arguing. Don't you know how Kerry got the nickname 'Liveshot'?

But I guess people are capable of believing anything no matter how incredible or unlikely. This is a good case in point.

[Dr Fate]

25. If true,then why do they refuse to even mention it, even once?

I suppose I'm perfeclty willing to believe that Kerry, etc are being censored from Hardball, Blitzer, O'Reilly, Scarbourough, etc- but you would think they would speak out about it if it were true.

I've never heard of an instance where a top, household name politican has been refused a slot on food-fight TV- show me some proof- somthing.

I don't even need proof- just a quote of Kerry saying it happens will do- I would take his word for it if he made the charges that you make.

The ads are great- but I'd like it even better if Kerry were saying it to some Repubs face on one of those debate shows.

[cestpaspossible]

31. Why do you keep asking me a question you know I can't answer?

It's a BS debate tactic, and it's getting tiresome. I don't know why Dean, Kerry or Boxer do or don't say the things they say or don't say. If you ask me again I still won't know. It could be because you are right. It could also because they choose to say other things that they think are more important.

I've never heard of an instance where a top, household name politican has been refused a slot on food-fight TV- show me some proof- somthing.

Look, I will never ever prove anything to you . I promise. Please stop asking me to do so. You are welcome to believe that no top, household name politican has ever been refused a slot on TV -- all I'm saying is that this belief does not reflect favorably on your own credibility or judgement.

It's like saying you think UFOs influenced the 2004 election. I wouldn't be able to prove that you were wrong, but you still would be wrong.

[Dr Fate]

35. You made an accusation- I asked for proof. Pretty simple.

And now *I'm* the one being accused of sneaky debate tactics?

I thought that accusations required proof- I did not realize that requiring proof before accepting somthing as fact was a tactic.

As it stands, you nor I have any proof or even an accusation that top DEMS are being censored from shows.

Either they are "not allowed" on CNN and are afraid to talk about this fact, or they are allowed, and decide not to go on for what ever reason. Either way, it seems we could be handling the situation better.

[cestpaspossible]

36. No, actually we just hold two differing views.

We disagree.

You apparently think Democrats don't want to appear on television to make their case to the American public, I think that view is as credible as believing in the Easter Bunny.

Do I feel an obligation to prove to those who believe in the Easter Bunny, that there is, in fact, no Easter Bunny?


No.

[Dr Fate]

37. I saw Kerry on TV many times- that was no Easter Bunny.

I never said for you to prove you were not beating your wife or that the easter bunny does not exist-

I asked for you to prove, or at least show me an accusation, that backs up what you say is happening.

I've SEEN Kerry with my own eyes on TV, many times- so I KNOW they do let him on at least somtimes. I've never seen Kerry or any other DEM make the claim that they were denied slots on shows- or any other proof that suggests this occurence.

Until I see proof, or hear them say censorship happened to them, I'll go with the fact that I have indeed seen Kerry on TV shows-with my own eyes- and contrast this to never seeing or hearing any proof that he is not allowed on TV.

[cestpaspossible]

38. I have no desire to persuade you of anything

all I was doing was pointing out, so that other readers of the words could see, that you are asserting that Democrats aren't asking to be on television and don't want to be on television, and I was commenting on how ridiculous, silly and far-fetched I find that belief to be.

[Dr Fate]

39. Kerry was just on Judy Woodruff as recent as March 23.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/john.kerry/

And he kicked ass too- not a bad interview at all- could have been better- but not bad.

Looks like she missed the Karl Rove memo or whatever.

I have presented proof that Kerry can indeed get on TV.

Now it's your turn to either shit or get off the pot.

[cestpaspossible]

40. And?

Did I assert at some point that Kerry had never been on TV or would never be on TV?

At least you know you've got lots of support for your view. That should give you some comfort.

[Dr Fate]

41. I thought you suggested that he was denied access to shows at times.

Perhaps you never meant that- Lord knows I dont want to put words in your mouth.

And it could be true-it would not suprise me- but I'll need either proof or I'll need to hear Kerry or another DEM victim of this talk about it and make the charge before I accept it as 100% fact.

The bottom line is I'd like to see more of Kerry and others on TV- and I'm now being flamed for suggesting it is not as difficult as some say it is.

All I am asking for is some proof- I just showed you proof that Kerry can get on TV interview shows- you still have yet to prove or show in some way that he cant.

Round & round we go...

[cestpaspossible]

42. I challenged your laughable and ridiculous assertion in post 6

Although Kerry could go on cable shows more & get the message out for free.


Yeah, this all started, not with me making some accusation, as you falsely claimed, but you making that positive assertion.

I have shown some of the reasons that I find your belief to be ridiculous, in response, you have admitted that the corporations do indeed have a motive to keep forceful and articulate Dems off the air, and the only alternative theory you have offered as to why they aren't on the air is because 'they don't ask'

[Dr Fate]

44. I proved that though- here is Kerry with a DEM message on TV for free:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/john.kerry/

See- Kerry CAN get on TV and spread the DEM message for free-unless this website is another Rovian plot. Whether he asked to appear or was invited, I could not tell you.

If he tried to get other slots and was denied, well, I'll need documentation. If he or other DEMS do not even try to get other slots, then that is a problem too- but I dont know the facts, one way or the other-that is why I ask for proof or at least an accusation.

If this censorship is happening, then Kerry needs to speak up about it- surely you at least agree with that.

Now it's your turn to offer any existing proof for what you are saying- it's still 1 to 0 in favor of Kerry being allowed on TV interview shows.

[cestpaspossible]

46. OK You are welcome to believe that particular proves the general

assertion you are making. Because John Kerry has appeared on television, that proves that Kerry could go on cable shows more & get the message out for free.


I don't have any problem with the fact that you believe that is a valid syllogism.

However, it's not.

[Dr Fate]

48. How many Kerry interviews on TV compared to ones that were denied?

If we could answer that question instead of playing logic games, we might figure out who is right.

I'm betting I could document least 20 Kerry interviews on TV- all I'm asking for is one, just one case where he was denied access to an interview or debate show.

Which shows in particular would turn down a Kerry interview if he asked? Hardball? O'Reilly? Blitzer? Obermann? Hannity & Colmes? I really just dont see it- again, something, anything in the way of proof is invited.

Again, I think his ads are great- but he needs to be on TV more.

[blm]

43. You stated in other threads that Dems like Kerry should be on every day

when it really is impossible for a challenging Dem to get on more than once month. The more centrist Dems get the offers to go on the shows from the producers. That's why you see Bayh and Lieberman more than other Dems.

[Dr Fate]

45. I also suggested they could alternate days b/t other popular DEMS:

Kerry on Monday, Hillary on Tuesday, Dean on Friday, etc.

Until I'm shown it cant be done, (And shown with proof or at least somthing other than intuition), I'll maintain that we can do it.

I still think it would be a good plan.

Kerry could go on one of those Debate shows once or twice a week. Surely they would have him on, if for no other reason than to ask him tricky questions-that's the rub- DEMS would need to learn how to better handle those guys- but that's not the same as saying they cant get on at all.

I think we could at least request the interviews- if they are denied, then we have a good case to call them "biased" whenever we do get on shows.

I find it hard to believe that the media can really keep Kerry, Dean, Hilary etc off of their TV shows forvever-and to keep them from mentioning certain things once they are on- but if we just sit back, then I guess it could happen.

[karynnj]

47. Wait a minute

When I used that interview and the MTP one as times when Kerry was on and said he was very good to disagree with you, you were still unhappy with his performance.

I doubt that he could get what he got there -a long interview LIVE - if he were available every day.

There is a major disparity in the way the press deals with Dem and Reps. Kerry is very good on his feet and articulate, but the questions were intended almost as an ambush. Bush, is sometimes coherent, but they show him almost in soft focus. Over time, Kerry (or any other Democrat) will slip and say something wrong. What will we see most of?

I think also Kerry is in a no win situation with some of you. As he is not the candidate, if he were on all the time, you would yell at him to get off the stage. Now, you yell that he's not there.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Welcome to the land of Johnny Velcro

where it doesn't matter what he does, it's wrong. He stands up, they tell him to sit down, then after a pause ask where he is. He fights for children's health care, but why isn't it health care for all? He fights for election reform, but should have said something sooner.

Le sigh.

[Dr Fate]

51. All I said is that I want to see Kerry on TV more.

And that when he is on TV, he should be more blunt and should talk about the things the media will not talk about.

I've also asked for proof concerning this accusation that Wolf & the rest are refusing the guy interviews- I dont believe it.

The ads are great- but he could be on TV even more for free. I believe that.

It almost seems like you guys attack me since you cant prove your excuses. CAN you prove that certain TV shows are denying interviews to certain DEMS?

[Dr Fate]

50. He could have done better- no doubt.

I believe I said that in both posts.

I believe what I said in that post you are mentioning was that he could have had more "hot" talking points that would have got repeated- and I still think Kerry uses too much "nuance."

If you want a thread about me, start one- I would love it!!!

The fact is that Kerry can indeed get TV interviews like the Woodruff one- and in my opinion, he could get on TV more and he could frame the issues even BETTER than he already does- yes- that is my opinion.

YES- they would ambush Kerry if he were on the shows- but that is not the same as saying he cant get on- ways to handle a pile-on debate is another topic.

As far as me bashing Kerry no matter what he does, not true- I've even said I loved the ads- but since I dare to suggest he could do even more, I have ruffled many feathers.

[Dr Fate]

52. I would never yell for him to get off the stage.

In fact, I've yelled for nothing but the opposite since the election.

You guys cant prove your excuses, so you attack me with strawmen and sweeping generalizations.

2006 wont be about Dr Fate and what he says about Kerry on DU at any given time- it will be about what DEMs say on TV themselves.

[seabeyond]

18. when kerry has been on, they have been hostile adn attacking

and kerry was not able to get his message out. have you noticed that in the past

[Dr Fate]

21. Life is tough and unfair. Republicans do that to me all the time.

And yet I still manage to win most debates I get in- that's because I use blunt facts, free of nuance.

YES- I if we send Kerry on TV, they will be mean to him and try to hurt his feelings- I never was arguing that.

Newsflash- they are "hostile" to him when he does NOT appear as well!!!

Having a tough fight against biased interviewers and being completely banned, as some DUers charge, are two different excuses.


YES- the media is biased- but that does not mean we still cant put up a fight and go on TV and get at least some our talking points out.

I like Kerry's new ads- more power to him.

[seabeyond]

23. try to hurt his feelings

quit being an ass. i dont know anymore than you know if any of them are allowed on media anymore. who is being asked, why they are, or are not going on shows. to create and decide a whole story to fit your agenda is truly a waste of time.

[Dr Fate]

28. "Hostile & attacking" towards Kerry- So what is new?

How about kerry go on TV and be "hostile & attacking" right back to them?


The fact that the media is hostile to DEMS does not mean we still cant at least try to steer the debate in a more favorable direction- but you have to show up for that to happen.

Everyone is so defensive- I'm just trying to suggest that we could get more exposure if our "famous" DEMs went on TV a lot more.

And FYI- name calling is against the rules.

[seabeyond]

30. well you have a show that invites three repugs and 1 dem

i am going to say they do it on purpose. why the top dogs arent on the shows i dont know. i would like the answer too.

i wanted kerry on all the shows running. he was good and liked when on the shows

[Dr Fate]

33. I agree- they often put 2 Repubs against one DEM. Life is unfair.

But that is different from saying that the DEM is "not allowed" on the show.

The two Repubs dont hold guns to the DEM's head and tell him what to say or what not to say either.

For the time, I guess top DEMS are going to have to learn how to debate two lying fools at once- I've been doing it at family reunions for years!!!!

[cestpaspossible]

24. I don't agree. Could you give an example of such a case?

I agree they've been hostile and attacking, but I don't remember an example where Kerry was not effective in response in getting his message out -- which is exactly why they limit his appearances.

Could you give an example of what you are referring to? tia

[Dr Fate]

26. And I agree with you on that small point.

Kerry is pretty good in those interviews- that is why I'd like to see more.

I think I might like to see him on the debate shows too- I'd like to see him loosen up and really go into those guys.

[seabeyond]

27. i agree with you

kerry has always held his ground and has done a good job with what he has had to work with. regardless of how frustrated i have been in listening to his conferences wanting him to be able to speak out.

the life is not fair and they may hurt him is simply bullshit. i have always seen that kerry can handle himself a lot better than most being givin the shit he is

[Dr Fate]

29. I know it's bullshit- you were the one who offered it as an excuse, not me

That was kind of my point- Kerry can handle it- but you have to show up first.

[seabeyond]

32. no you assumed that was my point and an excuse and what pissed

me off. no i dont see it as an excuse or something he cant handle. maybe he has decided wasnt worth it. that he wasnt getting the message out. that it ended up turning more people off. that it painted him as something he wasnt cause he wasnt given the opportunity to answer a question that painted him as a flip flopper. maybe he accessed it himself and came up with, cant get it out thru media. will have to go thru the net and emails and ground movement

my point is, we dont know why. may be reasonable, as much as us diehard dems would like their ass out front taking the hits. i dont know

you assumed it was cause i didnt have faith in kerry, or i thought it was unfair

i am always willing to take on, even in unfair, undfair doesnt bother me

[Dr Fate]

34. Thank god we agree, sort of.

I like everything you said- except I think it's unwise that our top-DEMS dont go on TV more often, and more importantly, use "hot" talking points when they do.

the problem with only using ads or emails is that it does not reach as many people- it's a great thing- but it is not our only option.

[Mass]

59. Not being on TV is not going to help him get his message out.

I would like to see him on TV more and I am wondering if he is not because he does not want or because the media prefer more accomodating Democrats like Biden or Lieberman.

[Catamount]

7. It's so good to see and hear Kerry's intelligent voice!

[Zhade]

8. Why didn't Kerry oppose Negroponte like this?

Hell, why did he VOTE for the guy? So far I've received one reply to this question in all the times I've asked it.

Still, glad Kerry's against this one, at least.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Negroponte hasn't come up for a vote yet

as far as I know.

There appears to be more history with Bolton than Negroponte with Kerry.

And also, didn't I hear someone at the Bolton hearing say that Negroponte had been effective working with the UN. Perhaps, despite past differences, Kerry and others see Negroponte as being the man for the job at the moment. I don't know. I'd have to find something written by Kerry on the subject.

Sometimes he puts these things behind him, as when he went to forgive Nixon. Sometimes he doesn't, as with the Bolton fellow. Bolton had alot to do with obstructing Kerry on Iran/Contra, so I think there has been bad blood for a long time.

[Zhade]

14. Uh, the vote happened years ago.

In fact, I may be mistaken, but you might be the person who answered last time.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Oh I thought you meant the current nomination

(shrug) just tryin' to be helpful. The second half of my answer is mostly musings. But I could try and find something over at Thomas.gov to see if Kerry had something to say at the time.

[Zhade]

67. Hey, we're totally cool. I figured it was a miscommunication.

And I appreciate your effort to answer - you're the only one (or maybe the second) to ever do so.

[kerrygoddess]

53. I don't believe Kerry voted for Negraponte.

[Mass]

60. No it was during the campaign and he did not vote

I dont think he really opposed it either. I guess he was rather neutral.

[kerrygoddess]

68. Kerry held up his UN nomination for 6 months in 2001

Negroponte's U.N. nomination was held up for six months in 2001 because of concerns from several Democratic senators — including Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. -about Negroponte's knowledge of "death squads."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-19-iraq-ambassador_x.htm

[Mass]

78. That is what I remembered but I could not find a reference /nt

[kerrygoddess]

79. Hard to find much

I did a Google search looking for the actual vote and had no luck.

[Mass]

81. There was no roll call vote, only a voice vote.

[kerrygoddess]

73. See this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1717380&mesg_id=1718800

[Zhade]

85. Uh, Kerry still VOTED FOR HIM.

Why?

[kerrygoddess]

54. Kerry's statement today on Bolton and link to the Ad

“John Bolton is the wrong choice to serve as America's voice at the United Nations.”

“Mr. Bolton's diplomatic tin ear and penchant for hostile rhetoric have hurt America's interests. As the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Mr. Bolton was responsible for halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, yet he achieved little in the way of either arms control or international security. America secured more nuclear material in the two years before September 11th than in the two years after. On his watch, North Korea and Iran have become burgeoning nuclear states, with North Korea's nuclear arsenal quadrupling from two warheads to eight today. His inability or refusal to resolve a liability question with the Russians has left enough plutonium for thousands of weapons virtually unsecured.”

“New reports that Mr. Bolton attempted to intimidate intelligence analysts who did not share his views are deeply disturbing. Given our recent tragic experience with intelligence failures, it's clear we cannot afford more of the same.”

“There is no single reason why John Bolton is a bad choice to represent the United States at the U.N. -- there are several. If his past is any indication of the future, John Bolton is ill-suited to be our representative to the United Nations. His hostility to the U.N. itself makes him an unlikely person to lead the strong alliances the White House now says we need to address our common threats.”

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=700

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/chafee-ad.php

[Dr Fate]

55. Is there a way we can get that ad repeated on the news shows?

Remember how the SBV ads got exposure from the news shows showing clips of the ads? It all started with Rightwingers going on the shows and bringing them up.

[kerrygoddess]

56. Well I said this earlier

It would be a good thing if our DNC chair and some other Dems started showing some support for what JK is doing. Don't ya think?

[wisteria]

58. I agree with you,why haven't they been more vocal about Bolton?n/t

[Dr Fate]

61. YES! I would LOVE to see more unity.

That is also another problem- when we do have a good message, not enough heavy hitters are on board repeating that message.

Kerry is on the right track with this- but I still stand by all my earlier comments & suggestions.

I agree with you- if the rest of the DNC needs to back Kerry to the hilt on this one.

[cestpaspossible]

57. Owning the media would be a good way.

To give a slightly more helpful response, all we can do is our part to let people know about things. If Boxer's pac does something, Kerry should talk about it, and vice versa, and so forth.

[Dr Fate]

62. I agree with that- but what about short term?

If nothing can happen until we "own the media" then we may as well hang it up until 2020 or beyond...Is there nothing we can do NOW?

I do agree with you about DEMs talking about each others PACs-that may get a good echo started but they need to do it on TV for it to have maximum effect..

[cestpaspossible]

63. I already answered that

as you acknowledged in your commment. It's like you've gotten in the habit of disagreeing with me and you are just doing so through reflex.

[Dr Fate]

64. I dont think you ever did answer it...

And I'm not disagreeing with you just for spite- I'm not so sure I ever disagreed with you so much as I insisted on proof & facts...

I will say half of my frustration is that everyone shouts "we cant do it that way" and accuses me of bashing- but offers no solutions.

"Owning" the media is unrealistic- having Boxer & Kerry repeat each other's PAC points IS a good idea- but in what forum would they do that if they really are not allowed on TV as some would have me believe?

Buy more ads, perhaps?

I'd love to hear some ways we can get our message out- all my ideas get shouted down.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. I wish Kerry wasn't so afraid to ask for donations

Every time his website asks for donations, he gets lambasted - from the Kerryhaters here on DU to the right wing nutjobs - for raising money. He gets criticized for trying to do anything and accused of jockeying for position for 2008. I expect that from the Dittoheads, but it pisses me off when leftwingers do it - some people around here are determined to hate Kerry come hell or high water.

I wish he'd try to raise enough money to buy airtime for these ads - and put them on TV. In RI, primarily, but also across the country. He'd have to raise lots of money to do that, though, and then take flak from all the idiots who hate that he stands up and DOES something. :shrug: He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

But you're right - these ads on TV would be great. Too bad all the haters would just accuse him of trying to "steal the spotlight." Sigh.

[Dr Fate]

75. I think Kerry should fully embrace his 2008 run.

"Why yes, barring some unforseen event- I DO plan on running for President in 2008-and no, I don't think it's too early to talk about all the things that Bush is messing up that I am going to have to fix 4 years from now..."

THAT would give him the right to "steer" the debate to virtually any subject he chooses.

My philosphy is that is the GOP/media is going to accuse us of somthing, then we might as well actually be doing it!!!

"Why yes- my opponent is right- I am suggeting that he is a liar and a crook- here is my proof...", etc, etc.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. Just my two cents

There seems to be a lot of needless bickering in this thread. I think everyone agrees that it's great of John to be out there getting this message out, and that the ads are great. I love that he's been high profile since the election - IMO he's been the single most consistent, public voice for liberal values this year.

I offer a compromise opinion with the squabble that seems to be going on (needlessly, IMO, as all here seem to fully support what Kerry is doing). I think it would be great if John was in the MSM media more, whether through interviews with the pundits or interviews in magazines millions of people read like Time or Newsweek. That said - the entire MSM is full of whores, and I'm honestly not sure how effective his appearance on said shows or in said magazines would be in helping him get the message out. We all saw the MTP interview - Russert the whore, instead of asking Kerry about his plans for 2005, asks him about Cambodia of all things, as if ANYONE outside of John "Smallpecker" O'Neill gives two shits.

So UNLESS Kerry could get on a show that had a preplanned topic - like a forum about Bolton, or Social Security, or some other apperance in which they couldn't ask him bullshit questions like "were you in Cambodia" or "are you gonna run in 2008," then I don't see that it would end up being much benefit. It would be a great thing to do if we could actually ensure that he'd have a forum to talk about his issues, but we can't - the whores would probably waste his time asking about Hillary or 2008 or Purple Hearts or some other Limbaugh/whore topic.


And I absolutely agree that the other Dems need to BACK HIM UP on this. Where's the DNC? Where are the "Dem" pundits like Begala et al on Bolton? Where's Dean, the new chair whose energy was supposed to instantly revive the Dem party? Why hasn't he or any other prominent Dem really backed Kerry up on the super-important Bolton issue? I say we all flood the DNC website with emails asking "WHY HAVEN'T YOU MADE A STRONGER STATEMENT ABOUT BOLTON?"

So I dunno. :shrug: I do know that I'm proud of Kerry for consistently standing up for what's right, even if he stands alone.

[AuntiBush]

69. KERRY won more of my SUPPORT today, on C-SPAN!

God. Kerry was at his very best today. I almost cried watching him, knowing "he was the man" that should be running this country.

Instead, we're stuck w/this evil, chimp circus that scares the living daylights out of me.

Kerry is trying... hope everyone realizes this. At least, he's battling for us.

[Dr Fate]

76. Did "regular TV" show any of the clips?

???

[hollowdweller]

72. Anybody want to help me with some Kerry bashing wing nuts?

Right here:

http://ramanon.com/forum/showthread.php?p=383538&posted=1#post383538

[bush_is_wacko]

74. I saw a little bit of it. Kerry was a pit bull. but in a good way! n/t

[Vektor]

77. Pit bulls are good!

And Kerry kicks ass!

This is my favorite pit bull.


Her name is Jupiter. She's part of the Northern California chapter of "Canines for Kerry". And she approves this message.

[bush_is_wacko]

82. I happen to like them too.

Some of their owners are nut cases! I'm glad she approves of this message. I trust dog opinions more than humans sometimes! Great smile!

[seabeyond]

84. bully for both of you, i have a pit across the way from my place

that attacked the rotweiller next door, and caused a lot of physical damage to the rotweiller, only to be told cause he is a male a bit aggressive may want to watch your boys while they are outside in case it gets out again.

oh joy

as summer comes, and they kinda like playing in out front yard, out by this persons driveway

so for now, i am not thrilled with pits, but then i know that is mine and my kids problem,

but then all the owners of these aggressive by nature dogs, that get to feel so powerful thru their dogs, dont worry about others around, as long as your needs are met. and i know it is all in hte owner that trains them. firstly not true, and secondly not much of a consolation when you have them living next to you

[bush_is_wacko]

86. I don't own one, but I used to breed Italian Greyhounds (kinda wimpy dogs)

But dealt a lot with other breeders and some of pits. The good ones would agree with you that a pit can be dangerous!

My experience is that it IS the owners that allow their dogs to become aggressive. Truly, you'd be surprised at how a well loved and well trained pit bull really behaves. BTW, Rotties are the SAME way! Many breeds are downright deadly weapons if not properly cared for.

As for your situation, it sounds like you've got some BAD owners with a very dangerous dog. I agree whole heartedly, keep your kids away.

Did they impound the dog at all? I know how terrified you must be. I have kids of my own. I wish I could give you better advice and I wish they would have laws about aggressive dogs in the vicinity of children. One aggressive act says a great deal about ANY dog.

[seabeyond]

87. these are people that fly a confederate flag, had swat team

in our yard two falls ago, lol lol and they confiscated 58 weapons, some silencers, adn a couple machine guns, lollol. and we are in a high income neighborhood. it has been a trip last 7 years. first moved here they had three rotweillers that roamed in a pack

my neighbor that got his rotweiller attacked told husband, .....told sam you are a crazy son of a bitch but i am just as crazy. and with your law problems i can assure you i have a hell of a lot more guns than you do. if i see that dog out i shoot it.

lol lol

that is where we sit

this pit a week ago stared me down when i was in the car. sittin in a stance just eye to eye. my neighbor rotweiller, i think is a nice dog., i think he wouldnt hurt kids. but then who knows. she doesnt get out

[Vektor]

90. Definitely idiots.

They ought to take that dog away to a rescue group. Those people are not fit to have animals. The should not have animals roaming free anyway - I believe that is against the law?

Since it isn't advised to suggest you shoot the asshole owners while sparing the dog, I won't suggest it. See? I'm not suggesting it.

:-)

[Vektor]

88. Any dog can be a menace

but many are not, and really breed is not the indicator. My dog is a sweet pet who lives harmoniously with four cats and another dog, and she is the cuddliest, most docile sweetheart in the world. My dog wouldn't harm a flea, and it sounds like your asshole neighbors are the problem. Their dog is just a victim of their stupidity. I am sorry you have been experiencing this. Come and live in my neighborhood! :-) Jupiter will welcome you with big drooly kisses. (She's the massive tongued dog in the photo!)

Pit bulls are not actually aggressive by nature, as is commonly believed. No more than most other breeds. My family has alway owned them, and what they are is TREMENDOUSLY loyal, and very hyperactive. The wrong socialization can turn that nervous energy into aggression, but pretty much all terriers are that way. My dog is rather timid, actually, and very non-aggressive. I have owned many breeds of dog, but this is by far my favorite. Their short neat coat, medium size, tremendous energy, and clownish nature make them an ideal match for my lifestyle. Sadly, this much maligned breed is often misused by thugs exploiting them for their physical strength and loyal nature, and nothing pisses me off faster than someone abusing/mistreating animals. My dog does not "make me feel powerful" nor would I foster aggression in her. I love her so much it is heartbreaking, and the irresponsible behavior you described by your neighbors happens to MANY large breed dogs - Dobermans, Shepherds, Rottweilers, etc... it's not excusable.

Those people sound like idiots to me, and I am mostly angry that these jerks have damaged your opinion of this great breed of dog. The dogs deserve better owners. The owners? Well, I won't tell you what they deserve.

From a responsible dog owner, I apologize for your neighbors.

[seabeyond]

91. i.......appreciate your post

thank you for sharing about your dog. i know it is the owner. just a scary thing to now have to be concerned about, now that spring is here and the kids play outside

thanks

[Vektor]

92. I understand -

and any unstable dog allowed to roam loose is indeed a reason to be concerned. If there are leash laws in your area, and these people don't make any effort to respect those laws, you are in the right to report them.

[bush_is_wacko]

93. And I second her apology!

Your neighbors sound like the EXACT type of people that shouldn't be allowed to own any dog. I'm sorry you have to endure them. Do have any rememdy regarding an agressive dog? Seems like a Pitbull Rescue Society would love to hear from you. Your local vet might be able to help you out with the name of one. They might be able to diffuse the situation. They can do it so you don't have to be involved and, hopefully, the dog will be put with owners that understand the breed and can deal with the dog's problems.

I'm so sorry you have to live next to people like this. When I lived in Kansas I had neighbors like this too! Mean people suck!

[seabeyond]

95. thanks guys it just happened this weekend

so was forefront on mind. i may take up your suggestion, make some calls about pitbull rescue. see what i can find. maybe the simple fact it attacked another dog that had to go to vet, i dont know

but you are right, has to be quiet, lol lol..........they arent nice. gun war, ayyy

[Vektor]

89. Sadly, this great breed

does attract some assholes, due to the immense loyalty and physical strength these tenacious terriers possess. Many many other "tough breeds" like Rottweillers, Shepherds, Mastiffs and Dobermans are often coveted by thugs with insecurity problems as well. They are not loving pet owners like we are. They are irresponsible morons who misuse animals. My husband and I are bleeding-heart liberal environmentalist lefties, and our non-aggressive and very sweet pit bull lives with another dog, and four cats with no problems whatsoever. She also knows and licks many babies.

None of us are psycho - except me when it comes to chocolate. :-)

[AmyJCNJ]

80. please write letters

I know things seem futile but...

Did you guys write to everyone on the senate foreign relations committee? I have a link to everyone on the committee on my blog please write to them. The Republicans will probably vote to confirm this scum anyway, but it doesn't hurt to at least try.

[Dr Ron]

83. Not looking good

WASHINGTON Apr 12, 2005 — John R. Bolton appeared a step closer to confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations despite scathing testimony Tuesday by a former State Department intelligence chief that he was a "serial abuser" of analysts who disagreed with his hard-line views.

A committee vote to send President Bush's nomination of Bolton, who has frequently dismissed the United Nations as irrelevant and misguided, to the full Senate could come as early as Thursday, depending on whether his Democratic foes request a few days to review State Department documents they sought to have declassified.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=663831

[cestpaspossible]

94. Yeah, it seems like Chafee is not being swayed

does he really have a conscience?