Kerry on a Roll: Calls ‘Lieberman the New Cheney’ on ‘This Week’

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry on a Roll: Calls ‘Lieberman the New Cheney’ on ‘This Week’
August 20th, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

John Kerry’s on a roll issuing smack downs like throwing out a one-two punch. Last night Kerry issued a verbal smack down to George Allen for his divisive, bigoted comments made last week… Today on ‘This Week,’ John Kerry nailed Joe Liberman as the New Cheney. OUCH!!!



John Kerry blasted Senator Joe Lieberman this morning on ‘This Week’ for “continuing his bid in the Connecticut Senate race despite a narrow loss to newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary earlier this month.” Kerry came out strong with his support of Ned Lamont last week, when he used his 3 million strong email list in a fundraising pitch for Lamont, Daniel Akaka and Bob Menendez.

“I’m concerned that is making a Republican case,” Kerry told ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” in an exclusive appearance.

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of “adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney,” on the issue of Iraq.

“Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut,” Kerry added, insisting Lieberman’s stance on Iraq, “shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there.”

Kerry called Lieberman’s independent bid a “huge mistake” and applauded businessman-turned-politician Lamont as “courageous” for challenging Lieberman on the war.

{snip}
“Iraq is not the center of the war on terror,” Kerry told George Stephanopoulos in today’s interview, as he asserted that, “Iraq is in a civil war; of course it’s in a civil war.” In April, John Kerry was one of the first to recognize that Iraq was in a civil war, in an OP/ED in the NY Times, that prefaced a powerful speech on the Senate floor calling for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Kerry told Stephanopoulos that “he supports the efforts of Senator John Warner, R-Va., to introduce a second resolution on Iraq if and when the country descends into outright civil war.” The general consensus is of course that it has, Kerry said he “believes that moment has come.”

He reiterated, “We have to set a date for the withdrawal,” before concluding, “The absence of diplomacy is putting our troops at greater risk and is reducing our ability for success.”

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3942

[mitchtv]

1. I am happy I voted for JK

Now we've got to silence the Lieberman enablers in our party.

[Webmaster]

2. Kerry supports leader of War on Renewable Energy

http://www.hydrogencommerce.com

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Contrary1]

7. Well, at least he realizes the real reason why GeeDub went to war in Iraq.

WHY WE FIGHT FOR OIL (his link)

[MH1]

10. Huh??

that link didn't help explain your post.

[MH1]

11. I did find this on your site

...US politicians of all stripes are growing increasingly convinced that the best way to cut the Saudis out of the energy equation is to turn away from oil. The energy task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, has looked in particular at expanding the market share of natural gas and nuclear power. Others, including the Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, have suggested massive investment in new energy technologies, such as solar-photovoltaic and hydrogen power.

So I guess your post was meant to be positive, but I think you left a word or two out somewhere.

[demdiva]

4. ugg...i missed it

good thing they do podcasts!

[_dynamicdems]

5. As always, good to listen to the senator.

The senator was right on in this interview and George Stephanopoulos was very respectful to Senator Kerry. Very good interview.

[RDANGELO]

6. Pat yourselves on the back DUers.

We have helped make Lamont the new star of the Democratic Party. Now the Democratic presidential hopefuls need to support him, if they want support from the base, and this should help lamont gradually get the great majority of Democratic voters.

[kerrygoddess]

8. JK nailed Lieberman

It was poetic.

[mtnsnake]

9. It's nice that he nails Joe, but he didnt actually call him the New Cheney

did he?

Anyway kudos to Kerry. I hope everyone starts nailing Joe. The more I hear Lieberman talk lately, the more he sounds like a bigger idiot than ever. He's so friggin smug, too.

[globalvillage]

15. He said

"I'm concerned that he's is making a republican case and that he's uttering almost same words as Cheney."

Pretty close, although technically, you're correct.

[sandnsea]

16. No, not those words

He said he was using Cheney's rhetoric or something to that affect. He didn't say Lieberman is the "New Cheney", or at least I didn't hear those specific words. It's up on the ABC site if you want to watch, it was one of the better interviews I've seen in a while.

[kerrygoddess]

19. It's the ABC headline. n/t

[karynnj]

26. No - that would have been obnoxious and wrong

What Kerry said was that some of the things Lieberman was saying were like those Cheney said - and they were wrong. Kerry has every right to do this Lieberman has mischaracterized his and Feingold's amendment in the Senate (in front of Kerry) and elsewhere. Lieberman's comments on Lamont and his supporters (and indirectly Kerry, Feingold, most of us etc) was to nearly accuse of of being with the terrorist. In that context, Kerry's comments were fair, measured, issue based, and on target. (Note - he didn't imply Lieberman was with the terrorists.)

[rosesaylavee]

57. Its not so much that he is smug but the whining voice that gets to me

It just goes right through me. Eeeuugh.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevedeshazer]

13. What's the solution?

Why is the Democratic Party incapable of winning elections?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevedeshazer]

18. Okay then

So, what's the solution?

[Antiwardude]

21. Considering the criticisms that should be obvious

But I'll break it down for you:

The Democratic Party must recognize and offer Americans leadership. They must innovate in the kinds of governing policies they advocate. To the point of challenging present realities -- that is called leadership and realizing a goal or vision. They must tell the truth in such a way as to be advantageous to them. They must enforce the law, and enforce it well where it is a matter of specific policy to -- focus their efforts where they will most count.

If Workplace Discrimination is what they are against, then they need to make it a priority to ensure the agencies delegated the authority to carry out their duties to ensure it doesn't happen actually function, and that employer discrimination is actually successfully fought.

They must have an agenda which is decidedly not Globalist or "Internationalist" because these are corrupt and undermine American sovereignty. And without that, forget labor regulations or anything else -- that IS the point of the Globalist's agenda. The elimination of the nation-state. Like some Communists wanted -- only in reverse. Read up on Neoconservatism's Trotskyite origins as an ideology. They married it to Big Business. It's called Global Fascism, and that is what people will realize it is, too late if we let it continue to grow as it is.

They must oppose Mass Immigration because it turns our communities on their sides, puts Americans out of work, causes tremendous congestion and a demand for services which are expensive and ordinarily unnecessary to have on a large scale -- America is a country, not a Refugee Camp or a Triage Center. Treat it as such and it will prosper. Forget that and it will resemble the places these people came from more than not.

The Democratic Party must develop coherent organization, focus, leadership, and a logical understanding of the consequences of the polices it champions.

And then and only then will they be able to say to Americans "We offer you the better deal, not merely the less worse one."

[ProSense]

32. The Democratic Party needs to keep doing what it has been doing lately,

which I believe resulted in Ned Lamont's win.

You may want to rewrite the Democratic Party's agenda to suit your motives, but we have visionary leaders, including Senator Kerry and can do without being scolded by naysayers. Here is vision:

here

here

here

here

Kerry also offered a set of principles he said progressives should stand for:

• Tell the truth to the American people.

• “Fire the incompetents” and hold government accountable.

• Make America secure by making America energy independent.

• “Value work, not wealth.”

• Export products, not jobs.

• Provide affordable health care for all Americans.

• Address global warming and the pollution of our air and water.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3298

Want more, click here


Seems the party is doing rather well, despite Lieberman:



I think if we stay focused, maybe we can get that up to 60% to 65%, but I'm not complaining.

Since we're on the vision topic, let me throw this in for good measure:

S.918
Title: A bill to reform the financing of Federal Elections.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 6/17/1997) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 6/17/1997 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
6/17/1997--Introduced.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
S.918
Clean Money, Clean Elections Act (Introduced in Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning
June 17, 1997

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.
SEC. 102. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND BENEFITS OF CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
`TITLE V--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

`SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.
`SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY FOR CLEAN MONEY.
`SEC. 503. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO CLEAN MONEY CANDIDATES.
`SEC. 504. SEED MONEY.
`SEC. 505. CERTIFICATION BY COMMISSION.
`SEC. 506. BENEFITS FOR CLEAN MONEY CANDIDATES.
`SEC. 507. ADMINISTRATION OF CLEAN MONEY.
`SEC. 508. EXPENDITURES MADE FROM FUNDS OTHER THAN CLEAN MONEY.
`SEC. 509. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPENDITURES OF PRIVATE MONEY CANDIDATES.
SEC. 104. TRANSITION RULE FOR CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE.
TITLE II--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES; COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

SEC. 201. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
SEC. 202. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.
SEC. 203. LIMIT ON EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES.
SEC. 204. PARTY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.
TITLE III--VOTER INFORMATION

SEC. 301. FREE BROADCAST TIME.
SEC. 302. BROADCAST RATES AND PREEMPTION.
SEC. 303. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS; ISSUE ADVERTISEMENTS.
SEC. 304. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.
TITLE IV--SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES

SEC. 401. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE.
`SEC. 324. SOFT MONEY OF PARTY COMMITTEES.
SEC. 402. STATE PARTY GRASSROOTS FUNDS.
`SEC. 325. STATE PARTY GRASSROOTS FUNDS.
SEC. 403. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
TITLE V--RESTRUCTURING AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SEC. 501. APPOINTMENT AND TERMS OF COMMISSIONERS.
SEC. 502. AUDITS.
SEC. 503. AUTHORITY TO SEEK INJUNCTION.
SEC. 504. STANDARD FOR INVESTIGATION.
SEC. 505. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
SEC. 506. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.
SEC. 507. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE MACHINES.
SEC. 508. POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA WITHOUT SIGNATURE OF CHAIRPERSON.
SEC. 509. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS NOT QUALIFIED TO VOTE.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE.


The complete 81 page document here.

Snip...

The following year, a re-elected Kerry was in another lonely position as one of only five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. The measure would remove practically all special-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. (Kerry's colleagues were Wellstone, Leahy, John Glenn and Joe Biden--all Democrats.) "Kerry was totally into it," says Ellen Miller, former executive director of Public Campaign, a reform group pressing for the legislation. "He believes in this stuff."

In introducing the legislation, Kerry said on the Senate floor, "Special interest money is moving and dictating and governing the agenda of American politics.... If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people, and if we want to reconnect to them and reconnect them to our democracy, we have to get the special interest money out of politics." He was also a backer of the better-known McCain-Feingold legislation, a more modest and (some might say) problematic approach to campaign reform. But over the years he's pointed to the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act as the real reform. "It is a tough position in Congress to be for dramatic change in financing elections," says Miller. "It's gutsy to go out and say, 'Let's provide a financially leveled playing field so there is more competition for incumbents.' Kerry and Wellstone were the leaders and took a giant step. It was remarkable."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040315/corn/3

Edited for missing words.

[blue cat]

22. delete

why waste my time

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

30. "I know the party and its leaders are beyond criticism." Are you a member?

Never mind. Here is Lieberman's treachery:

Snip...

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

Snip...

He also accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

"As bad as things are now -- and they've gotten worse in the last six months -- it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a position Ned Lamont has taken."

more...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2...

Snip...

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security.

Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war - including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York - who may be weighing a 2008 presidential run, had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections.

"They felt, frankly, let down that the U.N. inspectors were not permitted to finish, and they were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw this foiled British plot continues to be," Clinton said.

more...

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5282264

Snip...

'I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War,'' Lieberman said.

''If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.''

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Lieberman.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son.

In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10lieberman....

[Antiwardude]

44. Deleted message

I can't see how "Harsher words would have not been unfitting" could have violated the rules here.

I assume that means a moderator disagrees with the statement, and I'll take it being deleted to mean that and that alone.


I'm an independent. That dosen't mean I can't speak to your group here, and it even says in those rules that one dosen't have to be a Democrat to be here.

And I think I understand what Lieberman wants, and my point is he is no use to the Democratic Party -- unless they want to follow him over to Bush's agenda as well.

[globalvillage]

14. I couldn't disagree more.

Regarding Iraq, he called bush*'s policy a "disaster of catastrophic proportions".

On Lamont/Leiberman, he said Lieberman is "dead wrong" and that Cheney has been wrong about almost everything he's said about Iraq.

Regarding warrantless wiretapping, he said bush* has overstepped his authority and he "doesn't respect the Constitution".

Unless he's expected to call them all a bunch of fucking assholes on Sunday morning TV, he did just about right. His criticisms were harsh, but rational.

What would you have said that would have been more convincing to average Americans?

Welcome to DU, BTW.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[globalvillage]

23. OK, I don't understand the fishstick metaphor.

Again, I ask the question, what would you have said? Your claim is that his words aren't harsh enough. What would have been appropriate?
Are you now attacking Sen Kerry because he's not been on Colbert? Or because he's not getting enough media coverage?
FYI, we don't typically make attacks on Democrats here without good reason. You don't have one.
The "Dems are weak" meme is a republican media invention.
I call bullshit.

[kerrygoddess]

24. You assume a lot

He is the newspapers - his fundraising effort for Lamont, hit every major newspaper and area tv stations. Ya think he waited for an invite to 'This Week'... I think his hotshot communications director made sure he was on a Sunday show this week.

Sorry but me thinks your notions are half baked.

[globalvillage]

25. "half baked", LOL

Good one, KG. Nice thread, BTW. Recommended.
I thought Sen Kerry did great today.

[Antiwardude]

28. Fried and battered

His hotshot media director could have done alot better, debating Kerry is pointless though, he wasn't viable as a candidate to begin with. His appearance is typically well-mannered and unglamorous.

The Democrats have no sense of timing or fashion. Clinton had charisma, like Kennedy before him.

I haven't see another like them since them.

I am fried and battered by the way, and it takes one like me to know one.

[globalvillage]

33. Dude, you're not going to answer my question, are you?

No prob. I didn't expect one.
You're right. Sen Kerry is not Clinton or Kennedy. Teresa's probably pretty happy about that, BTW.
Kerry is Kerry. He's honest and and very bright, and IMO he is charasmatic. That's my opinion and that of others I know who have met him. You're entitled to yours. I've spoken with Sen Kerry twice and both times he not only impressed me, he LISTENED to me. No other pol I've met has done much more than shake my hand and ask for a vote.
Like him or don't, but the attacks are unwarranted. He's a good Dem who has worked hard over the past 35 years or so to make a difference. And he has.
I think he'd make an exceptional president.

And how does coming within inches of the White House translate to "not viable"?
As for glamour, fashion and timing, that's not what I'd expect to hear from someone who is anti-war, dude. Sounds more like a casting call for American Idol.

[Antiwardude]

39. You don't get it

You're clearly missing the point of my criticisms. This really is not about Kerry, and it also isn't about what he's accomplished.

It is about who he isn't and what he hasn't.

Bush accomplishes what he's accomplished by putting forward a certain image.

He's betrayed his fundamentalist base repeatedly. But he acts, speaks, and dresses to fit a certain idea they have of what kind of man they want as President.

He's openly pandered to bigots. To fundamentalists. He's done things that make no sense.

Kerry is great for some of the work he has done. I'm happy that he's made so much "progress" -- but he could have defeated the Republicans more openly if he had a better media presence.

If he had it more together, he wouldn't be settling for this collaboration with the Republicans, he would be leading them around with them in the opposition.

He just dosen't have what it takes. This is another example of how he addresses, and yet fails to address party business and affects the politics of the country in a net-loss way.

He gets close to making a change, but he dosen't do what is necessary to make it actually happen.

And he may listen to you, but if he can't speak truth to power, then those words fell on deaf ears, still.

[globalvillage]

42. Well, you're just going to have to spell it out.

Abandon principle for image because it worked great for bush*? Am I getting close?

And you still haven't answered my initial question, which was a response to your claim that his words weren't harsh enough. That may not be your current point, but it was when you first posted. You don't have to answer, though. I see where you're coming from.

[karynnj]

59. but if he can't speak truth to power

Kerry has done this - and is better at it than any other politician we have.

In one line you suggest that he should be like Bush - and be a phony - which he hasn't done in the 35 yrs he's been in the public eye. He is an extremely honest man.

As to the media presentation, consider the media didn't give the coverage you would expect from past ellections to his campaign. I saw his rallies and I saw Clinton's ... and others back to JFK. Kerry was very charismatic and he did connect - but the media did not show much of his rallies - often they showed Kerry in the backjground and their talking head saying what he said.

Kerry's convention speech got very good reviews as did his debating.

After the election, a stupid little tape "inside the bubble" was shown on CSPAN - the initial word was that it would make Kerry look bad. It didn't - it showed a man who was soft spoken and very nice to the "little people" in the campaign, remaining the calmest person in the room when things went wrong - where some politicians might have been screaming at their subordinates.

If people had really seen John and Teresa, they would have seen two very bright, kind people trying to make the world better.

[ProSense]

35. Clinton has something, but I'm glad he rebuked Lieberman! n/t

[MH1]

31. Wow, what a mature remark

He's been on the radio (Schultz and Rachel Maddow just in the last few days), posting at the highest traffic left-leaning blog (dailykos), sending out 2 or more emails to his list (I'll admit, I can't keep up, it might have been 3), working to raise money for Lamont and help get him elected. He gets plenty of press - maybe you should sign up for Yahoo alerts and Google alerts, and you would know this.

You said something upthread about "ensuring" various things. Well it's pretty difficult to "ensure" anything in the federal government when it is all controlled by one party. One thing Kerry has been doing, is to work with Republicans to get consensus where it's possible, like for some improvements in veterans benefits. You may poo-poo that, being as it involves working with "the enemy" and all, but it is getting things done, and it helps real people with real families. Similarly for his work on the Small Business Committee for micro-enterprises. You should check out the site sometime to see what he is doing - http://sbc.senate.gov/democrat / .

As for decisively taking a stand, have you ever heard of ANWR? Veterans benefits?

Did you hear of the Kerry-Feingold amendment to withdraw troops from Iraq? If Iraq is what you care about, it seems you ought to be going after anyone BUT Kerry and Feingold and the eleven or so Senators that voted for their amendment.

But then if Kerry is a fishstick, I must be a bit of cornbread, so what would I know?

[Antiwardude]

34. Collaborator

You think that all this fanfare he's involved in, and the campaigning for the up and comer will make a difference.

That's wrong. Not enough it won't.

Leadership isn't about smiling for the cameras and helping friends, not necessarily and not per se.

Leadership means unilateral action, it means you take a stand against that which isn't right, but more importantly, you fight for that which is. Social programs are a losing message to most Americans. Welfare Reform passed not because of some "evil cooperation with rich Republicans" it passed because it was necessary to prevent rampant abuse of the system.

Kerry is an over-polished hamfisted leader-of-default. Bush is at least glamorous. Hideously -- it's a freak show to go to one of his town meetings, but he at least feels his audience and is playful.

Kerry has the manner of a mortician.

And his politics are at least as stale.

The only 'progressive' issue he's aligned himself with seriously was HillaryCare, and that petered out because everyone could see it would be a massive debacle -- that the Republicans would probably game through their corporate ownership groups.

Kerry is doing plenty, but what he is doing is not working, has not worked, and hence for whatever plenty he's involved in, it isn't enough.

[ProSense]

36. "Bush is at least glamorous." OMG, no wonder you're sticking up for

the kisser!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

46. You are completely disingenuous!

You, Antiwardude, appear here for the first time today and proceed to trash Senator Kerry for criticizing Joe Lieberman. You then criticize the Democratic Party for not standing firmly. After being exposed as a possible Republican shill, you then proclaim a bizarre infatuation for Bush because "people become hysterical when he pauses in a speech," "he has a motorcade and a security force that clears the area of a mile in all directions of opposition protestors," and "he has juice." Then in a bizarre twist, you, Antiwardude, claim that Kerry should have won and "taken us out of this war personally."

Your comments are incongruous and insincere.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

52. Oops!

All gone!

[MH1]

37. You were allowed into one of Bush's town meetings?

That clarifies a lot!

[ProSense]

38. Looks like we got a live

Republiscam!

[globalvillage]

40. Why shouldn't bush* be "playful"?

He's got his disgusting war and his disasterous policies. He should be happy as a pig in shit. Life is good if you're a warmongering neocon idiot.
You're description of Kerry's manner is your opinion. Mine is that these are serious times and for him to pretend they're not would be disingenuous.
What is your obsession with glamour and the presidency? I think I'd rather have a president who could get us out of this war and get the country back on track. Do you really think glamour is of any real concern to most Americans?

[Antiwardude]

43. If the popularity American Idol is any measure

That's the greatest concern of most Americans.

He is too serious about issues most people don't have the capacity or willingness to deal with seriously, most of all because they are personally ignorant of the intricacies of the situation surrounding them, what interests are vested in what way, and other such pertinent, necessary information to have to make an informed decision.

They watch the Comedy shows because that is the most informed, accessible political debate they are exposed to.

That's the truth of the matter.

Kerry needs to dress in drag, do a dance, sing a song, land on an aircraft carrier, whatever it takes to win the Presidency -- or he should have, and he instead in his typicaly way was very poised and very well-mannered... and dull, and he failed to grasp the attention of people looking for a sensational leader -- no matter how bad his policies.

That is what people require. A sensational leader. A man like Dean but not necessarily Dean.

Who cares how bad his policies are? The ignorant masses vote for the smile and accept the firmest handshake.

So says two elections -- if we take the vote counts as accurate. And most of history.

Kerry is a bore, and America is still in the lurch with Stupid & Cadre because of that. Almost that reason alone.

That's a fucking drag, man.

I'm seriously disappointed in Kerry because of that. And the vote for the war didn't help to begin with either.

[globalvillage]

48. The ends justify the means?

Anything goes, provided you win. Lie, cheat, steal, just pander, pander, pander!!!

Fuck that. If Sen Kerry was willing to betray his beliefs to put on a show for America because we've become too stupid to know the difference, I wouldn't want him to be president. I believe we're better than that. You don't.

"Who cares how bad his policies are?" Are you kidding?

And Kerry, despite your numerous claims to the contrary, is not a bore. He's also not a whore who would sell his soul to make people like you happy at any cost.

How about this ... let's educate the public rather than abandoning our principles. That way we can have a leader who doesn't have to tapdance his way into the WH and we can all be happy.

[ProSense]

49. Who cares how bad his policies are?" So why do you care that Bush won?

Seriously, you are confused, which leads me to believe you are an extreme right-wing Republican.

[karynnj]

60. If this is true, "The ignorant masses vote for the smile and accept the

firmest handshake" , then we really need a recount. Kerry's natural smile is unbeatable - it's not permanently there as with some politicians, but when it appears it is the real thing. W's smile - not really. Never having shook hands with either, I would strongly bet Kerry on the handshake issue.

Kerry needed to show that he was Presidential- he did. As to sensational - he did pilot airplanes to some events, he did ride his motorcycle, he did windsurf. He is a man who stood with John Lennon and was given a guitar by Bono. He just rode 111 miles in a charity bike race in MA in less than 6 hours at age 62! He saved a chocking US Senator - and jumped in to save a daughter's beloved hamster.

Then there is the eloquent US Senator willing to stand against his party to close a terrorist bank. He stood alone fighting the Contras' arms and drug running. He was a real war hero - because he was smart, daring, and willing to think ahead on how best to protect his men. Then he led the nation to stop the war because he knew it was being continued only to save politician's pride. Even then - he fought pressure from both the right and the left.

If you wrote a novel with a character doing all Kerry did, think of who could play Kerry. Now, consider any "spectacular" candidate you named - looking at their life as a novel, would they be seen as almost too heroic to be believable? Kerry was and is. That's why the media tried to hide him.

[zulchzulu]

47. DU has this cool feature that I rarely use...but in your case...

[globalvillage]

50. It's really neat how that works, isn't it?

I'd love to take that to work with me.

[MH1]

53. Ah, but here's an even better one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

(Thank you, mods!)

[globalvillage]

54. Bwahahahaha.

That rocks.

Thank you, mods.

[zulchzulu]

45. You obviously haven't been paying attention...

Put down the bong and do some homework before you make a fool of yourself.

Kerry has been on many shows and has done many things that you either have ignored or haven't seen...

[kerrygoddess]

55. put down

the bong... LOL! I needed that laugh!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[symbolman]

56. Please pass this flash I created around, says it all, just like Kerry

Here's my latest work all about Joe LIEberman's ridiculous run as a "Party of One", which reminds me of "Army of One" (which gives ME a mental image of a guy stuck under fire in a foxhole, looking around and saying, "WHERE the hell IS EVERYBODY!!") -- Makes about as much sense in a marketing vein. Party of One, Translates into "Party of NONE" when it involved LIEberman, might as well be saying, "Party of ME", eh?

This flash also incorporates the fact that the Terror Lockdown on Liquids, etc came so close on the heels of Joe's Smackdown by Lamont as to not be considered credible - even today they are confirming that people will walk FREE because they don't have the evidence to hold them, let alone that there were NO Explosives in their possession, they hadn't even made reservations, etc, etc..

Meanwhile they talk about charging a PREGNANT woman for having some water, and a face wipe - this flash addresses those concerns as well, the fact that WE are being used as PUPPETS in a The Politics of Terror.

Remember, a republican said they'd ride this last nonThreat all the way into November. Let's prove them wrong.. Let's VOTE for Lamont, as we all know this last Primary was a referendum on Bush and his faked "war". The Nerve of LIEberman to shit all over the Democrats. It's like using a girlfriend to get you through medical school and then snatching up the Trophy Wife once you've graduated. How can we ever trust this Puppet again?

One of my best Flash works ever, and to the Tune of "Masters of War" by Mr Bob Dylan, and no truer words were spoken in our time.

Have a look at:

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/sta...

[blm]

58. What a shame it has come to this after all we've been thru as a party over

the last 10 years.