Hillary supporter Hilary Rosen belittles Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Dems on SFRC on MSNBC Tucker

[beachmom]

This person, who is given the role as "Democrat" on Tucker Carlson does not know how to defend Democrats. Read this transcript which is just shameful. Somebody get this woman OFF TV, or teach her how you stand up for our values and our Dems:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17982233

CARLSON: President Bush scolded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week for her freelance diplomatic trip to Syria. But it didn‘t take Bush to make Pelosi look bad. She did that herself.

Mrs. Pelosi appears to have misstated Israel‘s position on Syria so badly that the Israeli government had to correct officially and in public.

Ooh, embarrassing.

Here to talk about Pelosi‘s adventure in Middle East diplomacy, we welcome MSNBC political analyst and Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, and writer of “The Sleuth” at WashingtonPost.com, Mary Ann Akers.

Welcome to you both.

Amazing. Here—you know, here—I can‘t resist. Here is “The Washington Post” editorial on Nancy Pelosi. Now, “The Washington Post,” for those who don‘t live here, don‘t read it, it‘s a pretty liberal paper. I think it‘s sensible. It‘s not—you know, it‘s not a Daily Kos. But it‘s liberal, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Here is what they say.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jump right all over her.

They say: “Any diplomat with any knowledge of the region could have told her Mrs. Pelosi that Mr. Assad,” the president of Syria, “is a corrupt thug, whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel, but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting president.”

Now, one point at a time. Hilary, doesn‘t this make her kind of look like a lightweight?

HILARY ROSEN, NBC ANALYST: It wasn‘t Nancy Pelosi‘s finest moment.

(LAUGHTER)

Oh, isn't that funny, laughing at OUR Democratic House Speaker. Gee what's next? Oh, yes, let's make fun of Democrats of the SFRC and our last nominee, John Kerry:

CARLSON: President Bush yesterday appointed St. Louis businessman Sam Fox to be U.S. ambassador to Belgium. It has been decades since Belgium was a key player on the international scene. That‘s not counting, of course, that country‘s excellent waffles, beers and particularly French Fries.

The rub is that Mr. Fox gave a lot of money to see Mr. Bush reelected in 2004 and some of that money helped finance the so-called Swift Boat ads, aimed at Democratic nominee John Kerry. Well Congress was prepared to reject Mr. Fox‘s appointment on those grounds. So President Bush waited for a recess and sneaked Fox into the key position of ambassador to Belgium. Will there be any price to pay for that move?

Back to discuss it, MSNBC political analyst Hillary Rosen and writer of “The Sleuth” on WashingtonPost.com, Mary Ann Akers. Mary Ann, tell me if I‘m missing something. I don‘t think anybody has shown that Fox is somehow not equipped to be ambassador to Belgium, whatever qualifies you for that job, apart from giving money. The opposition to Fox seems to be based entirely upon his contributions to the Swift Boat ads.

AKERS: Absolutely. That was the initial opposition, because he give 50,000 dollars to the Swift Boat ads to the campaign that helped doom Kerry‘s presidential ambitions in 2004. So democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee rallied around John Kerry. They all decided they would vote against him. Bush withdrew his nomination just about 45 minutes before the committee sat down to vote on him.

So the nomination was withdrawn. The reason Democrats are so upset right now: one, they would be upset if Bush were going to use a recess appointment, no matter what. They are doubly upset, and they say it is illegal what Bush is doing because the nomination was withdrawn. In other words, it wasn‘t pending. And they are citing law that says it is illegal for the president to do a recess appointment when the nomination is not pending.

CARLSON: Let‘s get back to the core of this. And that debate will continue, there‘s no doubt, Hillary. But it turns out, I guess, and this is the part of the constitution that I‘m not that familiar with, but it‘s unconstitutional to appoint someone ambassador to Belgium if he‘s hurt John Kerry‘s feelings. That is the single criterion here, have you hurt John Kerry‘s feelings.

ROSEN: This is sort of a silly fight for Democrats. You know, Bill Clinton made several recess appointments for people that the Senate wouldn‘t approve for these kinds of important posts. My friend, Jim Hormel, was recess appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg. It‘s a prerogative of the presidency to do these thing things for people. I think it‘s a little disingenuous for them to object.

CARLSON: But can you just say, I don‘t like how you voted in the last campaign? I don‘t like who you supported, and that‘s you‘re not fit because you were my enemy in the last campaign to represent our nation in the all important nation state of Belgium?

ROSEN: Well, I think John Kerry and his colleagues on the committee are perfectly entitled to vote against this guy.

CARLSON: Of course they are. But they usually dress it up. They‘re like, you know, he‘s just unfit. Now they are just like, you know what, he contributed to ads that made us mad.

ROSEN: Well, they didn‘t say that‘s the reason. They said they thought that Belgium was potentially a hot bed of some future—

CARLSON: Belgium deserves better.

AKERS: But they didn‘t hide the fact that they were upset about his role.

(CROSS TALK)

AKERS: The bigger issue is 527 groups, in general, 527 groups, such as Swift Boat Veterans, that don‘t have to disclose their donors, their funding, anything, and that became the big debate in the Foreign Relations Committee. You know, look, you were part of something that was destructive government and politics. Sam Fox said he thought 527s were destructive.

CARLSON: Destructive? It‘s destructive to air your political views on television? It‘s destructive to have political views that the majority doesn‘t agree with. I mean, what the hell does that mean? The Swift Boats were a bunch of Vietnam veterans who had a view about John Kerry that was totally legitimate, and some how it‘s destructive. I know that‘s not your argument. That‘s theirs.

ROSEN: Regardless of—we don‘t have to redebate—

(CROSS TALK)

ROSEN: But they are just ridiculously untrue. But John Kerry would be wise to stick with the folklore that the Swift Votes was an unfair attack on him, and the more he brings up this issue this week, the more people are going to say, you know what guys, stop wining.

So let me get this straight:

1. Democrats are silly to fight this
2. Democrats are being disingenuous fighting this
3. The Swift Boat attacks were ridiculous and untrue BUT
4. It's actually only "folklore" that Kerry was attacked unfairly
5. Oh, stop whining, John Kerry. Suck it up. Just accept every sleezy unqualified nominee that comes your way. Don't be such a cry baby.

Now somebody tell me with a straight face that THIS is the Democrat we want on TV to defend our Democrats and party?

I didn't think so.

On the Fox recess appointment, I thought the DNC really hit it right:

On the same day the Democratic National Committee issued a report chronicling the Bush Administration's consistent pattern of putting partisanship ahead of good government, President Bush did it again. Today, the president put his political party ahead of the American people by using a recess appointment to install Republican political contributor Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium.

Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was responsible for notoriously brutal and utterly false attack ads smearing Senator John Kerry and his Vietnam crewmates during the 2004 election. In response to Fox's nomination, 11 of Kerry's crewmates sent the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a letter saying that "those who finance smears and lies of combat veterans don't deserve to represent America on the world stage." President Bush withdrew Fox's nomination last week when it became clear he would not survive a vote in the Committee.

"Faced with serious and principled objections over a nominee who funded some of the ugliest attack ads in a generation, President Bush had a choice between honoring the veterans who have served this country by distancing himself from these despicable ads and rewarding the donors who served his political goals," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "Sadly, President Bush once again put the interests of his Party ahead of the American people by circumventing the Senate in a clear abuse of his power."

Now let's get some Democrats on the Boob Tube to talk like that.

[habitual]

1. Hilary Rosen, Ex-head of the RIAA, is that who you mean?

is it any wonder?

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Yes, that's her

And if she had her way in 1998, the ipod would be illegal right now:

http://importance.corante.com/archives/2005/05/11/hilary_rosen_flashback.php

[papau]

8. It's like Greffen supporting Obama - you don't want him interviewed - as to the

Jim Hormel recess appointment, Jim is gay - and the GOP refused to approve a gay Ambassador.

Not quite trying to warped the judicial system so as to win elections.

But I don't expect Tucker to know squat about anything - and so the lack of correction for the idiot "supporter of Hillary" is not unexpected on that nor the lack of correction on Pelosi.

[beachmom]

9. Not to get catty here, but since Hillary attacked Geffen, well then:

Hilary Rosen is fair game, too. Obama was one of the members of the SFRC who wanted to fight this nomination for ambassador to Belgium.

[papau]

19. :-) no problem as to catty - and of course Obama was on the right side on this n/t

n/t

[TayTay]

2. Gee, what was that about teaching Dems to fight back

Isn't that what former President Clinton said after his appearance on Fox News with Chris Wallace last fall? Hee, I guess that only applies if the last name is Clinton, otherwise, why bother to fight back if you are a Dem.

Pathetic.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Rosen the Clintonista - oh, yes, agree with conservatives and trianglulate

[Ignacio Upton]

5. I wonder why Bill was so eager to sign the DMCA

...Guess we know the reason.

[fujiyama]

87. Ah! I didn't think about that

Another good reason for Rosen to support Clinton.

After all, their family has done her bidding before...

[JNelson6563]

26. Excellent summary

Accurate and sickening at the same time.

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

6. I missed Tucker's introduction of Rosen, so when I heard what she said, I thought she was GOP

except that right after she said those things about Pelosi, Tucker had the GOP spinmeister with him.

Rosen must be one of DLC's mouthpieces.

[JI7]

16. notice you usually don't know whether the "Dem" pundit is a Dem

until they indentify it with a caption. half or more of the time they are attacking Democrats and kissing up to right wing ass.

[karynnj]

7. Hilary Rosen is disgusting

As the Democrat, she leaves open that it is possible that the SBVT attacks were fair. It is only folklore that the attacks were unfair.

Also, John Kerry did not whine - and never has. He also didn't bring this up anywhere but in the Senate. He did not ask his email list to demand their Senators reject him. He says he lobbied no one. In fact, Obama and Dodd have made angrier (but very very appropriate ) comments.

What Rosen has to get is that these liars took Kerry's sacrifices for his country and took a record even the Nixon people knew was both spotless and heroic and left alone, and lied about it.

What would people here say if a Hilary commercial was created with all the RW ugly smears - such as saying she murdered Vince Foster - were given the prominence the SBVT were? The SBVT were that despicable and untrue.

[fooj]

10. She disgusted me. I couldn't believe my ears.

I'll tell you who is DISINGENUOUS...SHE IS!!!

If I was there, I swear I would've knocked her right out of her chair. "A view that was totally legitimate..." Grrrrrrrrr...:grr:

[AtomicKitten]

11. here Rosen stuck up for John Kerry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37009-2004Oct15.html

:shrug:

I guess I just don't get the monitoring of tee-vee pundits here at DU. Commentary is their profession and I certainly have no expectation that I will agree with any of them on any given day.

[w4rma]

12. Because those pundits have audiences and we're working to change those pundits

or at least their views.

[blm]

20. And the TELEVISED PUNDIT should stick to the staements released by DNC and Dean

if there is a statement released - and there WAS.

[beachmom]

14. That was from October 2004 in the heat of an election only weeks

away.

Rosen undercut Pelosi as well as JK, which I thought was beyond the pale. Normally I don't watch Tucker Carlson, but somebody had mentioned the outrageous remarks, so I tuned into the repeat of it, and it was as bad as thought.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I do understand your dismay.

I just turn the channel but I do see how their mis/disinformation is detrimental and possibly influences those that don't turn the channel.

This http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3205411 is something that really sticks in my craw.

[Demoiselle]

13. Back Away from the TV. Do NOT watch Tucker Carlson. There's no point to it.

It'll wreak havoc with your blood pressure, is all. Do you really think he'd have anybody
on that show who'd give him a hard time?

[babylonsister]

15. Great post, beachmom. We definitely need new spokespeople, and I'll

throw Carville and Brazille into the mix along with Rosen.

[blm]

35. We need to appeal to Dean. We need people to back up the DNC when it issues

a statement.

[mtnsnake]

18. So what are you saying? That it's Clinton's fault cuz a supporter of hers dissed Kerry & Pelosi?

Wow, I hope Rosen doesn't murder anyone. Clinton would get sent to prison for it, I'm sure.

[blm]

21. This is only latest in a pattern. Here's historian Douglas Brinkley from April 2004:

Hillary 2008 has been in business since 2000, imo.



http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

>>>>>
Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered (unable) to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>

[mtnsnake]

22. Of for crying out loud I should've known better than to ask!

So 1 historian out of a million...and an old buddy of Kerry's I might add...rips the Clintons to shreds, and of course you would choose to believe that one historian (really a history professor at Tulane). Why am I not surprised?

Just out of curiosity, blm, was Brinkley the brains behind Kerry wanting McCain for his VP in 2004? I ask because I'm starting to see a pattern here.

[blm]

28. Did he make it up? Did Greider make up his observations about Hillary2008 in 2003?

Did we all make up that Bill has been EXTRAORDINARILY benevolent to Poppy Bush since 1993?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030217/greider

Greider in 2003:

>>>>>
A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things.

Whatever the intention, one consequence could be to smother any internal debate about what the party really believes and how to enlarge its sense of purpose. Democrats and allied constituencies are deeply riven on that question--some wishing to revive an aggressive reform spirit and the big progressive ideas that Clintonism effectively dismantled with its small, symbolic answers to big problems. Congressional Democrats are beginning to understand that Clinton's "rope a dope" style no longer works in the Bush II era (when they make a smart gesture, Bush simply grabs it as his own). On the other hand, most Dems seem to have internalized Clinton's conservative economic doctrine as party gospel--fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are the first principle of governing, and managing the economy for growth is ceded to the Federal Reserve. This doctrine conveniently has wide appeal among the major contributors from business and finance, but it doesn't promise much for the folks who vote.
>>>>>

[mtnsnake]

34. People aren't going to hate Bill Clinton just because you want them to.

They might not like him, but they don't need you to ram your anti-Clinton rhetoric down their throats 24/7 for them to make up their own minds, although I'm sure a few might be influenced by your repetitive and divisive rhetoric.

[blm]

37. The point isn't to hate Clinton - it's to note that he's too friendly with Poppy Bush

in ways that are not good for Democrats or for this country.

And spokespeople loyal to the Clintons also seem to be DISLOYAL to other Democrats in general.

[mtnsnake]

39. So your constant anti-Clinton rhetoric & inneuendo is to get people to like the Clintons? lol

You're too funny, blm.

[blm]

53. No.. I want them to notice Clinton made a huge mistake in letting Bush off the hook

for all his crimes of office and that Poppy Bush deserves to be VILIFIED by all Americans for those crimes against us and other nations, and certainly not REHABILITATED in the public arena the way Clinton has been doing these past years.

And that Clinton has made choices throughout his own terms of office that benefitted the Bush family more than they ever benefitted Democrats or the country.

Had Clinton dealt honestly with the serious matters he inherited when he took office, then there would have been no chance of a Bush2 presidency or a 9-11 tragedy or this Iraq war policy.

And anyone who doesn't see that Bush1 and his cronies deserved to be held accountable not feted by the last Democratic president, isn't one to lecture other Democrats and Americans who do love their party and their country.

[mtnsnake]

56. Then why dont you start stating it that way instead of painting the Clintons as near criminals

like you've done literally hundreds of times on this board. When it comes to the Clintons, you've spun them as being monsters which they are not.

[blm]

57. I have called every situation as it deserves.

Whenever they side with GOPs and the Bushes against Democrats, they deserve to be called out for it.

[beachmom]

67. There is a big difference between stabbing a fellow Dem in the back,

and making a judgment that an Independent Republican (which is what McCain was at the time) might be interested in joining the ticket, quite possibly guaranteeing winning the election. And as Kerry himself said last week, the McCain people contacted him first. But Kerry wanted him to change parties, and he wouldn't do that, it fell through, and now McCain has gone completely to the dark side.

Kerry also said he would have named FOUR Republicans to his cabinet, had he been elected, in the spirit of having people you disagree with in your administration (dare I mention, like Lincoln did).

In case you're interested, you can hear all these details in the Kerry's interview with Tavis Smiley:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/tmoe_on_the_travis_smiley_show.html#more

[flpoljunkie]

23. Very instructive--Brinkley's remark about the two different Democratic parties.

"There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts.

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

[mtnsnake]

24. Instructive? Try divisive.

Where have you been? It's only been pasted umpteen times by the Clinton haters.

[blm]

27. You are angry that it is posted, but not disturbed in a historian's observations

made in a timeframe crucial for the Dem party in a presidential election year?

[mtnsnake]

29. Clintons aren't the ones being divisive here.

Bill, the best president since Kennedy, and Hillary, the Goddess of Peace, are out for what's best for all of us, not out for the best wishes of a select few who are upset that they can't have everything they're own way. :smoke:

[Nedsdag]

32. Hillary? Goddess of Peace?

It's a joke, right?

[mtnsnake]

43. Joke? Heck no!

She was the first (and only?) one of the major Democratic candidates to come right out and say that she will end the war in January of 2009 if it's still going on, when and if she gets elected President. The lady is not the war monger that her naysayers here claim she is. She is truly the Goddess of Peace.

[Nedsdag]

64. Okaaaaaaay!

:eyes:

[karynnj]

90. or Diana, the the moon goddess, the huntress -

I just wish the arrows were used on Republicans

[mtnsnake]

91. "the moon goddess"

Hillary...the lunar lover, the heavenly body of solar reflection...Moon Goddess.

Has a nice ring to it, karynnj. :)

[blm]

25. Long before Brinkley said this, I heard that it was the Clinton Dems vs Kennedy Dems

struggling for the soul of the party. This was back in the late 90s. And it is something that has been apparent throughout Bush2's first term.

[mtnsnake]

31. Yeah & I heard if Kerry had his way it would've been Kerry/McCain vs Bush/Cheney

Thank goodness never got the chance to make the offer official after McCain shunned his advances and Kerry ultimately chose a Democrat for his VP. How embarrassing that would've been. Poor Edwards, to have to play second fiddle to that rat McCain of all people.

[blm]

33. Damn that Tom Daschle for trying to get McCain to switch parties in 2001.

Kerry dumped the idea of McCain being a potential VP when McCain decided AGAINST switching parties in 2001.

But then, I take it YOU believe Kerry is a liar and that he actually did ask McCain to be his VP in 2004 just like the RW talkshows have said and that is why you spread that RW lie?

[mtnsnake]

38. Nice try at attempting to put your rhetoric in my mouth

but no tamales.

Hey, it's not my fault McCain shunned his advances. All I'm saying is thank goodness it never materialized. What an embarrassing chapter.

[PresidentObama]

41. Is this the only thing you have to bring to a debate, mtnsnake?

Anytime you debate a Kerry supporter, you seem to use this same old McCain talking point. It's a RW lie with no factual evidence, and your only evidence is speculation pieces and RW sources. I wish you could actually debate your point without bringing up such non-issues like this. Especially since you're spreading the lie that Kerry wanted McCain. Which has been debunked more times than I can count.

[mtnsnake]

42. Maybe you should worry about the lies hurled at the Clintons

instead of accusing other people of spreading RW lies. When Democrats themselves are on record as saying Kerry courted McCain, it's not a RW lie. You need to get that straight.

When I don't know something, I do a google search. Try it yourself sometime and find out for yourself if it's only RW'ers who say that Kerry courted McCain or not.

[blm]

44. Pundits repeating a RW rumor - gee, now that's reliable.

There have been no lies posted against the Clintons. And what's posted is CERTAINLY NOT from RW talking points.

I attack RW talking points against Clinton and I have been doing so since 1992. I understand and agree with many of the left's observations about the Clintons and their extraordinarily benevolent association with Poppy Bush and I have since reading Clinton's book.

[mtnsnake]

46. In that post, I wasn't talking about you in particular

but if the shoe fits...

[PresidentObama]

45. You know I stand against the lies spewed towards Hillary.

Just as I do for Senator Kerry.

That's not the point. How can you expose lies other spew with spewing lies of your own? Makes no sense.

And unlike you, I don't believe everything I can Google search. The facts are no evidence AT ALL supports this notion that Kerry courted McCain to be the VP. Not only that but both men have flat out rejected that notion, and I think they would know more than you or anyone else would. You want the facts? The facts are this was a lie spewed by the McCain camp that the media speculated on. You've never provide any evidence to back up these claims other than RW sources and speculation pieces. I don't like lies about Hillary or Kerry, and as much as I like ya....I won't stand for it!!

If this is the only defense you have for an arguement against a Kerry supporter, then why post? It's totally wrong to stand against lies about Hillary, then spew lies about Senator Kerry. I would suggest you stand against lies, period!! Especially about two fine Senators in Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

47. Instead of accusing me of lying, something I've never done, accuse the authors

...the authors who have made the claims that Kerry courted McCain, authors of articles by CNN and MSNBC. Let me know if you want to see any of the articles. Then you can whine to them about spreading lies, not me. If you don't like it that I can say I've heard and read from reliable sources like MSNBC and CNN that Kerry courted McCain for his VP, then tough diddlysquat. Go ahead and take the word of posters and bloggers if you must.

[blm]

48. Those same sources repeated the lie that Clintons trashed the WH, but that doesn't make it true.

Yet you can get months and months of statements from reporters and pundits on CNN, MSNBC and other places that REPEATED THE CHARGE. That doesn't make it true.

And no one here on DU would even pretend that a RW charge like that is true, no matter how many times it popped up on Google, CNN, MSBNC or Meet the Press.

[mtnsnake]

49. and just because things are often repeated about the Clintons here, it doesn't make it true either.

[blm]

52. Big difference. Rove's lies against Clinton don't deserve repeating. Facts from real journalists

and observations of honest analysts and historians DO deserve posting and discussion.

You want the voices of honest and earnest left observers shut down.

You never show up on any thread discussing longtime BushInc corruption that needs to be addressed - try jumping in on those threads and put up your theory that we are all lying about Bill Clinton's protection of Poppy Bush over the years.

[mtnsnake]

55. I'm the one who wants voices of honesty shut down??

I'm the one who goes after the liars. I don't fertilize them.

[PresidentObama]

50. If you believe lies, that's your own error of judgment.

And I've seen the articles you wish to show. The RW sources and the speculation articles. I've seen them. And I'm not taking the word of posters and bloggers. I'm taking the word of Senator Kerry and John McCain. If you wish to spread lies about Senator Kerry because you can't debate your points against Kerry supporters, I won't stand for it. Even if they're in the wrong, you have no right to drag Senator Kerry into this because you can't debate your damn point. I've seen you do this more than once.

I agree with you about standing against lies towards Hillary. But I stand against ALL lies, not just some. And if someone posted an article about this poll that said 50% of Americans wouldn't vote for Hillary, so she can't win. Let's say all the major media outlets reported stories about Hillary not being electable because of this one poll, would you stand against it? I think you would. The media isn't always right or reliable. I don't think one poll would be grounds to say she is unelectable. Just as speculation isn't grounds for you to spread lies about Kerry "courting" McCain when both have said otherwise.

[mtnsnake]

54. That's where you're wrong..

...where you say that "Just as speculation isn't grounds for you to spread lies about Kerry "courting" McCain when both have said otherwise."

Both HAVE NOT said otherwise. Both have said that no OFFER was ever made. Big difference. I agree no offer was made because there WAS no offer made. That much is obvious. However, there are plenty of indications and speculation by reliable sources that CLAIM that Kerry courted the idea of getting McCain for his VP.

[blm]

58. Court is wrong. Kerry considered it possible back in 2001 IF McCain switched to Dem party.

But since McCain made his choice to not become a Democrat in 2001, then that eliminated him from the possible pool back at that time.

The deliberate mutation of this possibility back in 2001 into an offer in 2004 is utter bullshit from the RW that has been repeated by irresponsible media sources - the same ones who are now lying about Pelosi and Syria through their sloppy standards of news reporting.

[mtnsnake]

59. It was also widely speculated upon in 2004 by Democrats as well as Republicans

The speculation existed in 2004 and it continued for quite a period of time, prior to him finally making the offer to Edwards. Nothing you can say or do can change that part of history.

[PresidentObama]

60. Nope, I can't change speculation. You also can't make it the truth, so stop spewing it. n/t

[mtnsnake]

82. Read posts 69 and 75 and then get back to me. nt

[blm]

61. And speculation among some who heard RW talking points deserves repeating now?

And how does it effect today?

The decisions Clinton made in the past effected just about everything happening today.

Speculation based in RW talking points is a standard peculiar to few here at DU.

[mtnsnake]

63. ...and selective criticism is also "a standard peculiar to few here at DU" nt

[beachmom]

69. Here is what Kerry said last week which I hope will put this to rest:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200704/20070405_.html

Tavis: I thought the Kerry-McCain question was an interesting and a good question, even though you didn't wanna deal with it.

Kerry: Well, I'm not dissing the question.

Tavis: Here's why, though. I said that only because - it's not to go back and rehash who did what when, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek about that. It's fascinating to me, Senator, respectfully, because it raises a question as to whether or not you think, in the world we live today, in the America we live today, an idea novel in that way could work.

Could it get off the ground? There are a lot of folk who think that you guys in D.C. have it all wrong; that what's lacking is bipartisanship. I ain't telling you nothing you don't know already.

Kerry: Well, let me say this about bipartisanship. I said publicly, and I think it's a well-known fact that Senator McCain and I had a conversation. That is a well-known fact. Senator McCain did not indicate a willingness to seriously entertain the idea of switching parties, be different or something, and so we never got that far. But the point I would make is that we need bipartisanship, and had I been elected president, I was determined to have at least four members of the Republican Party as members of my Cabinet.



Kerry did not offer the VP slot to John McCain. It didn't get that far. But they did "have a conversation". That's not the same. And as I spoke of before, Kerry told MYDD that it was, in fact, the McCain people who approached Kerry first. IMO, the whole episode speaks volumes of the strangeness of McCain, and only that Kerry was receptive to McCain crossing over to the Dem side.

[blm]

74. The timeframe was when McCain was 'thinking' about switching which was in 2001.

That is, if Daschle is telling the truth, which I believe he is.

So, I think it is also likely that when Daschle was trying to convince McCain to switch, that Kerry and he had that conservation at that point.

[beachmom]

75. No, it was '04 that he was talking about. Here was Tavis's first question:

Tavis: One other question about that, and two other quick political questions - I wanna get to the book here in the balance of the time that we have. To your point though, now, a guy you've served long with in the Senate on the other side of the aisle, of course, John McCain has made some news of late, not the least of which is 'cause he ain't raised no money that people thought he was gonna raise.

We'll come back to that in a second. But there are people who think, in fact - well, let me just stay there now. There's some folk, in fact, who think that his money woes have something to do with his position in Iraq. He's obviously very different; diametrically opposed from where you are on this Iraq question. There's a story that broke over the last couple days, though, about what happened in the last presidential election.

Whether or not you reached out to McCain to talk to him about being a running mate, possibly, across the aisle, or whether McCain's people reached out to you. What can you tell me about who did what and when they did it?

Kerry: I think all the - who did what is sort of a - it's not a great use of time, Tavis, to be honest with you.



So he first didn't want to talk about it, but then when Tavis pressed him, he gave the answer which I posted above. It was about the VP slot. Kerry never offered him the VP slot, btw, but they did "have a conversation" which seemed to not get very far.

[blm]

77. the timeframe is never established beyond when Mccain was thinking about switching parties, and

since we know that he was thinking of that in 2001 and Democrats were talking about it then with him, this is still likely the timeframe that Kerry and Mccain had this conversation.

That's the way I hear it. When Kerry says McCain decided against switching parties which ended the consideration, I put that decision to not switch in spring of 2001 when the Dems were appealing to McCain.

[mtnsnake]

79. No sense trying to re-write history anymore, blm.

A good project for you would be to study post #75, especially this part:

Whether or not you reached out to McCain to talk to him about being a running mate, possibly, across the aisle, or whether McCain's people reached out to you. What can you tell me about who did what and when they did it?

Kerry: I think all the - who did what is sort of a - it's not a great use of time, Tavis, to be honest with you.

[beachmom]

86. No, on MYDD when Kerry came out with the bombshell that

it was a McCain aid who came to his people, he was being asked about the Daschle 2001 stuff. Here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.

John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop...



So in 2001, Kerry was not part of the process but had talked to Daschle about it. Then in 2004, the McCain people approached Kerry, and then they "had a conversation", and the process didn't get that far. I really think this is the truth. What is still hazy is this concept of a "courtship". I still think McCain is exaggerating that part of it, when from what Kerry said, McCain was unwilling to switch parties. With that, Kerry was not interested.

[blm]

88. The two stories do intersect - I understand how you make your conclusion, but I still read it

as the 2001 timeframe when McCain refused to switch parties.

I don't think in the Tavis interview that he specifies 2004 as when McCain refused to switch parties - the only time I heard it specified was as a 2001 maneuver from Daschle where they would have naturally expected Kerry to convince to McCain, based on their past friendship at that point.

Surely it can get confusing because of the different levels of 'discussions' at two different times, but the bottom line is really that the offer was never made but it would have been considered had McCain switched parties and become a Democrat.

[mtnsnake]

78. Thank you beachmom. That backs up everything I've been saying.

I agree that Kerry never made an actual offer, btw, just that the idea was floated in 2004.

[beachmom]

68. Um, BLM -- did you watch Tavis Smiley?

Kerry said he DID have a conversation with McCain about switching parties in '04, but that McCain was not interested in switching parties. He also told MYDD that the McCain people contacted him first.

Here's the link:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/tmoe_on_the_travis_smiley_show.html#more

I'm not sure if there is a transcript, however.

Edit -- see above. I have a transcript.

[AtomicKitten]

83. don't get why this is a big deal, really

And really isn't of interest other than the adamant denials that it happened. I do appreciate you offering evidence to settle that question, however.

I think it was Kerry's strategy at the time, and I can see his line of thinking. 2004 was a tumultuous time, even more on-edge than today. Although I would have preferred a let's-get-out-of-Iraq thrust to the campaign, that would have been as dicey as Kerry's apparent bipartisan strategy.

Still as in 2000, 2004 was another exercise in election fraud, which is something I am really getting anxious about because the Dem Congress -- and this can only be solved legislatively contrary to other blaming here at DU -- has so much on its plate.

But I digress ...

[beachmom]

66. I don't know -- what do you think? Geffen was merely an Obama

supporter and donor, yet the Clintons felt compelled to attack Obama for Geffen's remarks. Just curious -- do you have a statement by Hillary 100% supporting Nancy Pelosi and her trip to Syria? I haven't heard anything. If Hillary did that, then she would distinguish herself from Hilary Rosen, now wouldn't she?

Hilary Rosen is a Hillary supporter, and that is significant, which is why it made it in my title.

[mtnsnake]

81. Granted, what's good for the goose is good ofr the gander

but just because Hilary Rosen supports Hillary Clinon doesn't necessarily mean that Hillary Clinton would condone Rosen's criticism of Pelosi and Kerry. It's just that I thought you were kind of implying that Clinton somehow was responsible for this by virtue of your thread title.

[paulk]

30. guilt by association?

after the 24/7 trashing that Kerry got around here back in 2003-2004, I think some of you folks from the Kerry forum need to take a long, hard look in the mirror....

[Mass]

36. So, Rosen was right to criticize Pelosi (and Kerry).

Because it seems it is all beachmom says.

I am not really sure what your point is here, but it has nothing to do with the OP.

[paulk]

40. "Hillary supporter Hilary Rosen "

from the header -

do you understand my point now?

[beachmom]

71. She is a Hillary supporter and is frequently introduced that way on Tucker

If she had been an Obama supporter, I would have included that. I think that is very relevant information, and it is a FACT. Please do not stereotype "Kerry supporters", for which you were once one yourself. I am not a "Hillary hater", but I will once in a while observe, FACTUALLY, that people connected to her don't defend the Democratic team very well. This concerns me. And, frankly, it should concern you, too. Every time one of the "Democrats" undermines our message on TV, the less Democrats can further their agenda, which I assume you support.

It's also a well known fact that IF Hillary got the nomination, I would vote for her in the General. I didn't think that meant I have to sweep pesky facts under the carpet of Hillary supporters on TV undermining our message.

[paulk]

84. she was not introduced as a "Hillary supporter" on this particular

show and the comments you are referencing here had nothing to do with HRC, so it's not relevant for you to identify her as a "Hillary supporter" unless you are trying to somehow make a connection between the two. "Guilt by association" about covers it, and it is disingenuous for you to argue otherwise, IMHO.

Rosen's remarks in the interview are generally supportive of Pelosi, except for the one you have cherry picked - which was in response to Carlson's remarks on the WaPo editorial, where, indeed, it does look like Pelosi put her foot in her mouth. Since then, however, things have shown themselves to be a bit more complicated, as Josh Marshall points out here -

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013508.php

I doubt this is info that Rosen had available at the time of the interview.

[beachmom]

85. Thanks for the link, paulk. Very interesting indeed.

Which is one more reason Hilary Rosen should have reserved judgment. And the line I showed (cherrypicked, as you want to call it) was VERY negative and it's the part I remembered, not the niceties that came before or after it. In regards to how she is introduced on a particular day, Hilary Rosen is on that show all the time -- and when they talk '08 politics, Tucker will say she is a Hillary supporter. You may not like the way I put the OP together, but you have to admit, it was factual.

[blm]

51. Well - when I look in the mirror, what I don't see is a 'coincidence theorist'

and I don't see a 'conspiracy theorist' either.

I see someone who can read and comprehend reliable reports from investigative journalists and analysts and who believes in fighting government corruption and secrecy and privilege.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[blm]

70. Because you only know my posts from AFTER I read Clinton's book and have no clue

how heartily I defended the Clintons for the 12 years prior.

You don't see how some people can be offended by the protection Clinton provided to Poppy Bush, and I do see how those concerned with corruption issues and open government issues WOULD EASILY be offended by Clinton's protection of the Bushes in these areas.

You certainly seem focused more on attacking Democrats who weigh in against Clinton's alliance with the Bush family than you concern yourself with the product of that strange alliance.

[AtomicKitten]

73. your "interesting" way of assimilating information and forming an opinion

is unique only to you and people like you that go off on a bent -- the object of the game is to consider ALL information, not selective information that reinforces your already enmeshed, embedded, set in concrete opinion.

[blm]

76. Funny how you attack me instead of the reporters you can't refute.

.

[AtomicKitten]

80. you're not interested in refutation

This crap has been debunked over and over and over again; you don't acknowledge that, of course, because your only intake is that which reinforces your set-in-cement opinion.

Keep on preaching to the choir.

[Cha]

89. I see people like you

making personal attacks and it's against the rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

62. With friends like this, we don't need enemies

Speaker Pelosi did the right thing going to Syria. Mr. Bush and Company had abrogated their right to conduct foreign policy by continuing one that has only resulted in bloodshed and abject failure. It is up to the legislative branch to lead the country until the regime is removed from power.

Ms. Rosen is correct that President Clinton also abused his power to make recess appointments. That is not an argument for allowing Mr. Bush to do likewise. That is an argument for duscussing a constitutional amendment to take this power away from the president. The rationale for the power rests in the fact that eighteenth century congressmen were unable to fly back from their districts in a matter of hours should Congress need to reconvene to consider such a nomination or other business.

[karynnj]

95. This goes to the heart of the matter

Recess appointments should be outlawed.

[Canuckistanian]

72. Criticizing Pelosi, there's the giveaway.

Not an ounce of credit for what Pelosi accomplished.

She could have said "Pelosi handled herself well, BUT...."

Either she's getting ALL of her news from the "liberal" WaPo or she's part of the effort to smear Pelosi.

I'd say it was the latter.

[Major Hogwash]

92. So the US Navy didn't give Kerry his medals - he gave them to himself? WOW!

And that is what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claimed.

Hilary is so out of touch with REALITY it isn't even funny.

[Major Hogwash]

93. Ms. Rosen's comments will be used against Kerry during his re-election next year.

Which is why all of the lies that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told need to be fought back against with the truth, not rhetoric.

Men and women are being killed every single day fighting in Iraq.
10 more were killed over this last weekend - Easter weekend!

Those men and women fighting and dying in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, need to be supported - by the truth.
Those men and women are being awarded medals all the time.
And they do not award medals to themselves!!

The US Navy does NOT let sailors award medals to themselves.
The US Army doesn't let soldiers award medals to themselves either.
Neither does the US Marine Corps nor the US Air Force.

The SBVT degraded the medals of ALL servicemen and servicewomen by saying that Kerry awarded his medals to himself.

Fight back with the truth!

"The truth has a force of its own." ~ John Kerry

Stop the Iraq war - support the men and women of the armed services.
Support the men and women of the armed services by stopping the Iraq war.

Support ALL of the men and women who serve in the armed services by stopping them from being used in a war based on lies - the Iraq war.

[karynnj]

94. Exactly -

It is also the flexible morality of Rosen and some of the people like her that lead to a view of the world where nothing is innately wrong or right.

Here, the SBVT, were liars. There is NO doubt on this and the proof was always there. They lied for political purpose and because they hated the fact that Kerry stood up and spoke the truth as he knew it in the 1970s - and he spoke the truth on the Contras, BCCI etc.

Rosen gave as the reason it was ok that Clinton did it too. First, of all, as someone recently said, "Do 2 wrongs make a right? Second, this is NOT what Clinton did.

We, not Senator Kerry, should continue to make it an issue. As it is, I do think that Sam Fox has paid some price already. The confirmation hearing of an obvious patronage position, which his kids and grandkids attended, is normally a time to hear your live praised in glowing terms. Instead they saw him squirm because his conscience knew he did wrong.

Fox is the head of the Republican Jewish organization. His religion calls a person spreading known lies a "Motzi shem ra" and says they are a moral leper. The story my kids learned in Hebrew school as to why this was the case told of a man who spread lies about a Rabbi, but was sorry. (This already puts him a step ahead of Fox) The rabbi tells him to go home, take a feather pillow and cut it open in the wind, then return. He did and was told, he should now go back to gather all the feathers. The man said that wasn't possible - and the obvious parallel was made to the fact that the lies couldn't be undone.

The media needs to tell the truth. These people lied for political reasons - and Sam Fox and George Bush knew it and they helped - and they are both moral lepers. For Fox, the penalty will be that far more people will think of his $50,000 donation than any good he has done when they hear his name.