This Is Really Sad. How Do All these Slander Threads Help Discussion

[WiseMen]

I see at least 4 threads with outright baseless libel.
The words being used to describe John Kerry, a democrat, a potential
nominee of the Party, are worse than exist on the top page regarding
Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld.

When, How will this stop.

When can we have discussion of issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Here's how they help

They help Bush by keeping the discussion off of him and they help Dean by keeping the focus off his hidden gubernatorial records which have far less public interest than John Kerry's private life.

[funky_bug]

6. Wow... interesting, and I agree

You know, we could continue to argue it, but then it stays on the front page here at DU. We could choose to ignore it, but then we get "ah HA! No one can defend him against MY revelations."

It's sour grapes, and it's making a lot of "whine" around here.

There's no way to stop it. People who believe it, want to believe it. Their past alliances and present avatars make their opinions and slander less credible than anything we can do, or not do, to make it stop.

[XanaDUer]

22. Thank you, NSMA

I contend that Dean's sealed records are far more compelling than IF, and that is a big IF, Kerry had an affair with this woman.

Notice the rags that are carrying the alleged "affair"-junk like British tabloids owned by Murdoch or his News Corp.

Won't matter in the end, though.

[drfemoe]

47. Well .. the state of VT

is in open view for all to see. The state of VT didn't get on a plane to Africa.

[mopinko]

2. when people stop pushing electability

as the major issue. as long as kerry supporters are trashing howard dean as unelectable, as tho kerry stood for something, this will continue. pander to the lowest common denominator, and guess what you get.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. You're right. Dean is electable.

That is why he is 0 for 16

[goobergunch]

8. He's 5 for 5 against Republicans (n/t)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. So is Kerry in the senate.

In a state with a much larger population that doesn't vote every two years.

[goobergunch]

14. In a state much more Democratic than Vermont

Massachusetts voted for Gore by 27.3%, while Vermont voted for Gore by 9.8%.

[XanaDUer]

25. Lol!

"electable" is subjective!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

27. hrmm....

So if such a rumor were reported about Dean, people would NOT question Dean over them? I think that's untrue.

[funky_bug]

44. The "sheep" took a look at Kerry's

penis, liked what they saw, and voted for him on Saturday.

It's over - time to move on to the next Drudge-bait.

[Dookus]

10. How is Dean electable

if he can't win a single primary in his own party, despite dumping 40 million dollars and campaigning for two years?

[WiseMen]

40. What do you mean by "Electable?" Kerry supporters don't care about word.

"Electability" stuff is an invention of the media and Dean
supporters as far as I know.

It sounds stupid and passive and John Kerry does not talk about
that B.S.

The point is to defeat, trounce, destroy, demolish Republican
control of the levers of power, and take our country back.

[drfemoe]

50. Chris Lehane spread a good deal of the "unelectable"

smear around while he was working for Kerry. Dean supporters had nothing to do with it, but you don't know how right you are about the media.
>> partial snip
The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease. This time, they didn’t even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word “unelectable” at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo.

John Kerry is a member in good standing of the feeble Daschle/Biden/Feinstein wing of the Democratic Party, a group of politicians whose disagreements with the mercantile elite tend to be merely rhetorical. Any doubts about Kerry’s level of commitment to his stated progressive beliefs were conclusively answered in 1994 when he proclaimed himself “delighted” with the Republican takeover of Congress. The media oligarchy knows that a general election race between Kerry and George W. Bush will insure a continuation of its monopoly, regardless of who wins.

The news cartel had always been hostile to Dean; independent surveys revealed that he had received the most negative coverage of any candidate except Dennis Kucinich (the only other contender who strongly favors mandatory media divestment). But after his statement on Hardball, reporting about Dean abruptly came to an end and was replaced by supposition. The existing conjecture in political circles about his ability to win was transformed into a thunderous media mantra that drowned out all other issues

By mid-December, the news divisions of the four major television networks were reporting as fact that Dean was unelectable. The print media echoed the theme; on December 17, the Washington Post printed a front-page story that posited Dean could not win the presidency. The Post quickly followed up with an onslaught of articles and editorials reasserting that claim. Before the month was over, Dean’s lack of electability had been highlighted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

As 2004 began, Time and Newsweek simultaneously ran cover stories emphasizing that Dean was unelectable. In the weeks before the Iowa caucus, the ongoing topic of discussion on the political panel shows was that Dean was unelectable. National talk radio shows repeatedly stressed that Dean was unelectable. The corporate Internet declared that Dean was unelectable. And the mainstream media continued with the storyline that Dean was unelectable right up until Iowans attended their caucuses. Iowa Democrats could not watch a television or listen to a radio or read a newspaper or go online without learning that Howard Dean was unelectable.

It was the classic Big Lie. Through the power of repetition, the corporate media – which has been wrong about who would win the popular vote in two of the last three presidential elections – inculcated the public with the message that Dean could not win. Pollster John Zogby wrote, “Howard Dean was the man of the year, but that was 2003. In 2004, electability has become the issue and John Kerry has benefited.”

The unexamined factor is how electability became “the issue”. It had never before been the dominant consideration in Democratic primaries, because voters had focused on policy rather than crystal ball gazing. Electability was this campaign’s version of “Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet”: it was a media contrivance that was used to manipulate voters.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_...

[drfemoe]

51. Chris Lehane spread a good deal of the "unelectable"

smear around while he was working for Kerry. Dean supporters had nothing to do with it, but you don't know how right you are about the media.

>> partial snip
The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease. This time, they didn’t even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word “unelectable” at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo.

John Kerry is a member in good standing of the feeble Daschle/Biden/Feinstein wing of the Democratic Party, a group of politicians whose disagreements with the mercantile elite tend to be merely rhetorical. Any doubts about Kerry’s level of commitment to his stated progressive beliefs were conclusively answered in 1994 when he proclaimed himself “delighted” with the Republican takeover of Congress. The media oligarchy knows that a general election race between Kerry and George W. Bush will insure a continuation of its monopoly, regardless of who wins.

The news cartel had always been hostile to Dean; independent surveys revealed that he had received the most negative coverage of any candidate except Dennis Kucinich (the only other contender who strongly favors mandatory media divestment). But after his statement on Hardball, reporting about Dean abruptly came to an end and was replaced by supposition. The existing conjecture in political circles about his ability to win was transformed into a thunderous media mantra that drowned out all other issues

By mid-December, the news divisions of the four major television networks were reporting as fact that Dean was unelectable. The print media echoed the theme; on December 17, the Washington Post printed a front-page story that posited Dean could not win the presidency. The Post quickly followed up with an onslaught of articles and editorials reasserting that claim. Before the month was over, Dean’s lack of electability had been highlighted in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

As 2004 began, Time and Newsweek simultaneously ran cover stories emphasizing that Dean was unelectable. In the weeks before the Iowa caucus, the ongoing topic of discussion on the political panel shows was that Dean was unelectable. National talk radio shows repeatedly stressed that Dean was unelectable. The corporate Internet declared that Dean was unelectable. And the mainstream media continued with the storyline that Dean was unelectable right up until Iowans attended their caucuses. Iowa Democrats could not watch a television or listen to a radio or read a newspaper or go online without learning that Howard Dean was unelectable.

It was the classic Big Lie. Through the power of repetition, the corporate media – which has been wrong about who would win the popular vote in two of the last three presidential elections – inculcated the public with the message that Dean could not win. Pollster John Zogby wrote, “Howard Dean was the man of the year, but that was 2003. In 2004, electability has become the issue and John Kerry has benefited.”

The unexamined factor is how electability became “the issue”. It had never before been the dominant consideration in Democratic primaries, because voters had focused on policy rather than crystal ball gazing. Electability was this campaign’s version of “Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet”: it was a media contrivance that was used to manipulate voters.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_...
** no copyright on above material

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. How about the slander threads about OTHER candidates?

There's one about Dr. Dean that is equally libelous right now. Should I expect to see your condemnation in it?

[funky_bug]

9. You know I have defended Dean on more than one occassion

No red herrings here, friend. It's horrific to me, watching the way we the dems buy into slander when it suits our purpose (taking the other guy down to clear the way for mine.)

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. As have I.

If it's a legitimate issue, the 'let 'er rip', is my feeling, but 'issues' like Dr. Deans sponylosis (sp.) are just...... over the top.

[funky_bug]

21. Again, I couldn't agree more.

This is very sad, and I'm embarrassed by it. Please know not all of us wish to slander Govenor Dean.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. I know.

Most of us are reasonable people.

[WiseMen]

17. Absolutely. Baseless Libel is not just illegal but imoral.

If there is proof of some Kerry crime, fine. It worth discussing.
But the baseless unsubstantiated garbage against a fellow
democrat is a monstrosity.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Good!

I look forward to your condemnation in the thread about Dr. Dean skiing in Aspen, which is on the front page. Keep me posted.

[Dookus]

19. Is it factually untrue

that Dean was skiing in Aspen?

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. Read the thread, then get back to me.

It's a hit piece, Dookus, and you've been really down on those the last few days, if I've read GD-P2004 correctly.

[Dookus]

28. Well what makes it a "hit piece"?

Because it's not pro-Dean?

I'm not even opposed to "hit pieces" per se. I'm opposed to accepting lies, rumor and innuendo as facts. I don't complain about legitimate criticism of ANY candidate.

[WiseMen]

23. Absolutely. It is not just stupid. It is pointless.

[goobergunch]

7. I would refer you to Will Pitt's post here

I'm not going to stop, of course. This is primary season, and if the candidates and their supporters do not fight like valkyries for the chance to win that nomination, they do all of American democracy a disservice. Consider the alternative: Passive, quiet, mealy-mouthed campaigns in which, due to the lack of aggressive tussling, there is no effective way to suss out positions and ideologies. That would be a disaster, so I am not going to stop.

<snip>

Most all of you won't get off the bus, and neither will I. Most all of you will continue fighting, regardless of blandishments to the contrary, because that is the nature of the season and the contest itself. Appeals to ABB or togetherness are sandcastles before tidal waves. Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.

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

What he said.

[funky_bug]

13. Will Pitt is a class act

But imho, since Kerry hasn't been proved "guilty", there is no there, there.

And also, imho, I don't care where Kerry's penis has been, as long as I don't have to deal with George's Dick for the next four years.

[justinpower]

12. Lets discuss issues now

I agree the accusations flying around are dissappointing. I am a DK supporter and issues that are important to me are the war, free trade, and healthcare. Can you explain to Kerrys ideas on how to deal with these key issues?

[WiseMen]

29. Kerry Authored Env. & Worker Rights Amendment to NAFTA. Opposed Clinton!

http://johnkerry.com/issues/trade /

As he fought for in NAFTA Kerry believes in free and fair trade. Kerry
fought against Clinton to modify NAFTA to include Environmental and Worker rights conditions.

Kerry has specifically stated that he wants to make Federal investments in specific area of innovation (such as environmental
technology) to improve U.S. competitiveness. He will also
ameliorate the job loss by funding targeted domestic infrastructure
investments.


John Kerry believes that American workers can compete and win with workers anywhere in the world if they have the skills and training they need and the level playing field they deserve. He will put in a place a series of incentives to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States and he will ensure that our trading partners play by the rules. He will invest in 21st century manufacturing – in creating the industries and jobs of the future. And if we’re going to build the jobs of the future, we need to make sure our workers are trained and ready to do them. John Kerry will make sure America has a cutting edge workforce by helping manufacturing workers with grants to upgrade their skills and by making higher education affordable for every American.

[goobergunch]

33. Kerry voted for Fast-Track

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[WiseMen]

35. That was a Democratic Position. Trade Agreement cannot be negotiated

internationally based on day to day national political fights.

Every other country has the equivalent of fast-track OR we would
not make trade agreements with them.

[goobergunch]

38. It was opposed by 87% of the House Democrats

So it wasn't a Democratic position by any means.

Furthermore, one of the things I like most about the Constitution is that it supports the independence of Congress from the executive branch.

[WiseMen]

43. It was a CLINTON Bill. I can give name of Democrats that worked on it.

[goobergunch]

45. Clinton signed the Welfare Reconciliation Act and the DoMA

Clinton isn't the paradigm of Democratic values that some make him out to be, IMHO - he was a moderate at best.

[ibegurpard]

53. Not to mention the Telecommunications Act

Which, by allowing the proliferation of media consolidation, did more to stifle balanced discourse than repeal of the Fairness Doctrine ever could have.

[justinpower]

34. Environmental and worker rights conditions

do not exist in NAFTA. If kerry fought hard for this he clearly was not successful. He did vote for NAFTA and all the other free trade initiatives. I have heard him stump about a level playing field for the American worker, but I still have not heard how he intends to bring those changes about. NAFTA and the WTO can not be tailored to work, they need to be scrapped. I admit that I did not follow the link to his sight. I would prefer to have the discussion with you, not just be directed to some position papers. Thank you.

[WiseMen]

36. It was not successfull. You should know that. Most of Kerry's "Far-Left"

efforts in the Senate. But he tried as hard as any. Those who
worked on NAFTA (including myself) would know this.

[justinpower]

37. So if he knew that

NAFTA was flawed to the degree that it was devoid of environmental and human rights protections, why did he vote for it?

edited for spelling

[WiseMen]

39. Because the Alternative of the "Status Quo" was worse.

Analytic evidence showed that labor market and economic
change under "status quo" WITHOUT NAFTA was
worse than projected regional job growth and labor flows
WITH NAFTA.

Employment and Industry data from Mexico, U.S. and Canada over the
previous 20 years was employed in a Computable General Equilibrium model
(CGE) to arrive at those conclusion.

Under the legislation some institutions were set up to monitor and
ameliorate potential negative outcomes. These included the
North American Development Bank (NAD Bank) and the North American
Intergration and Development Center (NAID) at UCLA.

Under Clinton NAFTA impacts were managed.

[justinpower]

41. Im not certain I understand

I am not highly educated so maybe you could dumb down your language for me. Are you saying that our economy was tanking and NAFTA was neccessary to revive it? Because I do not see how it has helped anyone but corporate stockholders. How did these monitoring institutions keep NAFTA under control, and where did they go? Why, with the obvious shorcomings of NAFTA do we continue to seek new free trade agreements? How will Kerry fix the problem?

[WiseMen]

42. No. A pattern of U.S./Mexico dev. was in place with likely bad outcomes

NAFTA tried to bring some regulation and control over stuff that
was already happening.

Currently U.S. ballance of trade and job-loss issues have little to do with Mexico. They have more to do with India, Indonesia, China etc.

[justinpower]

46. I see

So corporations were already moving south of the border, NAFTA just made it legal and regulated it in some way. How does NAFTA regulate trade? What is its function other than allowing corporations to exploit cheap labor?

[WiseMen]

48. Here are some non-governmental links for you

http://www.nadbank.org /

http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu/

[justinpower]

49. Thank You

I have bookmarked them and will check them out.

[WiseMen]

54. My pleasure. I really appreciated engaging on this issue. Peace!

[boobooday]

31. Time to take off the gloves

We can win on the issues, we can win on character, but we would be better off winning on issues!

W is nothing but a thieving liar, and the evidence is there. We must take control of the national conversation! They have been controlling the debate and setting the agenda for too long.

When they howl about gay marriage, we should change the subject to children without healthcare. When they scream about Kerry's girlfriend (it doesn't matter if she exists or not, so long as they get us to talk about it) we answer with National Security.

They are fools, and their emperor's clothing is threadbare.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Goldberg]

16. What are the threads about?

That are slandering Kerry?

[justinpower]

Oops my bad

disregard this post

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Terwilliger]

32. Discuss the issues...hmmm...are the Pukes discussing the issues?

No, so you'd better get used to not talking about issues, and it would behoove to learn the game quickly.

[edzontar]

52. I used to oppose these slander threads openly

But after months of them directed at Dean, I don't care anymore, and just try to avoid them.