Maybe this is blasphemy in this group

[rox63]

I really do like and admire Kerry a lot, and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. But if Al Gore keeps giving speeches like this, and he decides to run again in 2008, I'll be really torn about who to support. Gore also really "gets it".

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133

Ducking and hiding... :hide:

[Mass]

1. I know what you mean.

Durbin running would be a tough call for me (I dont think he wants, but...).

And Gore gave a great speech.

If only all these great voices could forget their personnal ambitions for a while and unite to lead the party.

I really would want to see them (put whoever you want as name) give a common meeting presenting a common face against the corruption and cronyism of this regime.

[rox63]

2. Read the speech

It's fantastic. All about how the media has been manipulated to put and keep the neo-cons in power.

[Mass]

3. I agree - this is a great speech

We need all these guys to get together and lead. (make it guys and girls - Boxer can be fantastik when she starts).

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. I like Gore a lot, but...

... didn't he just start a new TV network? I can't think of anyone better to lead the media revolution than him. Not every great man can be president - if Al Gore can help us give the media back to the American people, he will be doing an equally important and vital job as Kerry, leading the nation.

[karynnj]

5. I would happily take either if the nominee

As far as the primaries, I like Kerry's world view and his way of seeing interactions between things better than Gore's more linear thought processes. (weird for a math major to say)

Reasons I hate to admit too. I also think Kerry is more personable and far more fun to listen to. Teresa is incredible. I think if Kerry would have won, she would have been the biggest surprise as people actually got to see her for who she is.

I liked the speech, but I think there were parts of it he could say because he has no intention to run. Oddly, if he changes his mind - for the more LW, saying these things (which I bet a lot of the politicians secretly agree with) makes him far more interesting. The media lied when they said Kerry was boring, but Gore really was. I had a real problem listening to him because he sounded like he was talking to not very bright elementary school students. However, I will take boring and honest any day over Bush.

Just comparing speech to speech, I would prefer Kerry's Brown speech. The vision, optimism, and energy in Kerry's speech isn't as visible in Gore's.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. I agree

Gore's speech was great, but it didn't give me the lump in my throat the way Kerry's did. And, maybe this makes me superficial, but Kerry has such an amazing life history - if his life was a movie, the only natural ending for it would be in the White House. He's such an American hero, on every level. And yes, he's handsome, charismatic, thoughtful, and kind. He has It - that intangible, undefinable quality that just makes him shine above all others.

[TayTay]

7. Rox, they both know this. All Dems know this

It's why Air America was founded. It's why David Brock founded Media Matters. It's why we now have the Center for American Progress. It's why George Soros and Warren Buffett and the other billionaire backers of the Dem Party are putting $500,000 each for five years into an initiative to give the Democratic Party what the Rethugs have had for a while; a strong platform from which to disseminate the Democratic view.

I like Al Gore a lot. He is a good Democrat and I am proud of my vote for him in 2000. I don't actually think he is going to run again, but he would be a welcome addition to any primary as he is thoughtful and well-spoken. But a lot of Dems and Dem backers 'get it.'

There is an excellent book out, that I'm reading now called, The Republican War on Science. This book traces all the ways that the Rethugs, on behalf of their corporate backers, have marginalized science in the name of corporate profits. The strategies employed are very familiar to anyone who paid attention to last year's presidential race. I highly recommend it, just to see how brazen these corporate whores nd their bought and paid for shills in Congress really are.

Kerry gets it. I remember this part from his speech at the JFK library this past Feb. Kerry, like Gore and Clinton before him, were smeared by the Republican Noise Machine. These guys survived the slime-ball tactics of the Right and know what we are up against:

There's been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America’s media with the American people, of the flow of information in our society. If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on election day believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, as they did, and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, as they did, then something has happened in the way in which we’re talking to each other and who’s arbitrating about truth in American politics.

This is important to me not as a Democrat and not to somebody as Republican, it’s important to all of us as Americans. It’s important to us in terms of our Constitution and the fulfillment of the promise of this land. I don't believe that we have to go through a great soul searching about what we stand for or who we are or where the values fit in the debate in America, frankly. I think we know where they fit, and I think we know profoundly as Americans what really makes a difference. But when fear is dominating the discussion, and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem. We learned that the mainstream media in the course of the last year did a pretty good job of discerning. But that there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than the flow of information, and that that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.

[rox63]

8. I know they both get it

And both are wicked smaht. I don't know if Gore will run again. But I'm really glad he's on our side. I wouldn't blame him if, after the 2000 fiasco, he is soured on running for office again. Just imagine how much better off we'd be if * had never been allowed to steal the presidency?

Oh, and he should have picked Kerry as his running mate in 2000, instead of Joe Loserman. That was such a bad move. Joe has all the charisma of a garden slug.

[Mass]

9. for 2008 Kerry-Gore or Gore-Kerry

Two experience men will not be too much to clean the mess.

[jillan]

17. These two should run together and claim what was stolen from both of them!

I actually think that Gore has been out of politics for too long.

It would take alot for people to seriously look at him as a presidential candidate. Yes, they love him on the blogs. But we are only a sample of the democratic party. If Gore wants to make another run for the Presidency than he needs to be more actively involved. Even run for a local office or something to get back into the game.

Right now I can't think of anyone that can outdo Kerry.
But that could change. Like Mass, I want to see some leadership from him. Right now he has nothing to loose. He has to make a stand. He lost(?) the election, and because of that, he needs to work a little harder than the rest. It was a devastating loss, and there will always be alot of emotions that surround him.

[TayTay]

10. The Dems didn't get it for a long time.

That was the real point of Thomas Frank's book last year, What's the matter with Kansas. Dems were speaking truth but they weren't adressing the fact that everything they said went through the Republican Noise Machine where it was distorted. We are a good 25 years behind the Rethugs in effectively using the media and making effective counter-points to their arguments.

I think the next nominee of the Dem Party will be the person who figures out not just that the game is rigged, but how to counter the right wing spin and actually get the DEm message out. And Example is the Bankruptcy Bill. The idea of holding people accountable for their debts sells in middle-America. Americans want people to be responsible and to not try to get out of honorable debts. The REthugs know how to spin this so that every time the Dems bring up the counter point that sometimes people get into financial trouble that is crippling, the Rethugs scream about the Dems being soft and allowing the unproductive and undeserving poor to take advantage of the taxpayers.

This can be fought on it's own grounds. We have to say the centrist position that we expect people to be responsible for their own actions and running up bills on a credit card and the pleading that you can't pay is wrong. But this is a world away from a military family that finds itself with a foreclosure notice because the amount of money the military pays is not enough and the service time has been extended beyond all reason. It is different when unexpected medical bills wreck a families finances. We need to reconcile both sides of the American character, the side that demands accountability for individual actions and the side that understands that sometimes people get into trouble through no fault of their own and need help getting out of it.

We need a bigger and better megaphone. Sigh! It is being put together and it does take time. In the mean time, the Rethugs are just shouting louder and being heard more.

[beachmom]

11. Well said, Tay Tay

It reminds me of what Bill Clinton said in the '90s.

He talked about people who were working, playing by the rules, and still not getting by. THAT'S the distinction. I just watched John Edwards on TDS, and he talked about that, too, and I was really impressed with him.

I hate to say it, but we've entered another guilded age, and it sucks that people will wait until they've lost everything in an economic downturn until they realize -- oh, shit -- those damn Republicans took away all of my safety nets. My family is doing well, but I know that if you have a combination of a lost job and a catastrophic illness, that can mean the end to your blissful middle class existence. I suppose I should be a Republican, but I'm a reader of history, and I know a healthy government that provides a minimum of benefits for the poor down on their luck is a safety net for EVERYONE. Yes, there will be abusers and you try to elminate the fraud, but you DON'T eliminate the system because a few con artists slipped by. Sad to say, but if we were down on our luck, our safety net is my husband's home land -- Germany. They learned to stop waging war, and instead to better their own society. Maybe we Americans will do that in a 100 or 200 years when our Empire has faded, too . . .

[beachmom]

13. As far as Blasphemy, Rox

I don't know. Is everyone here going to automatically vote for Kerry in the primaries in '08? I think that's too much to ask of all of us, as there are so many unknown variables. Some shadow candidate we haven't thought of may show up and blow everyone away. Or maybe a candidate like Hilary Clinton runs an unbelievable campaign and wins us over. Who knows. I just think it's simple enough to say that everyone here at the JK forum was an enthusiastic voter for John Kerry in '04, not just ABB, and that we love the guy and think he has done a superb job in the Senate since his defeat. To be honest, I like him better now than I did on Nov. 2nd, 2004. And right now I can't imagine voting for anybody but him in '08, but that's a long way off, and I certainly would never begrudge someone from this group moving on to another candidate if they felt strongly about it (as long as he or she is a Democrat!). Only blasphemy on this forum that I can think of is if you suddenly didn't like the guy anymore. I don't see that happening with anyone here.

[wisteria]

12. Say it ain't so! Good speech on the state of the media and

its effects on perception and opinion in the US, but to waiver on support for John Kerry simple because of this is upsetting.This was not IMO, a speech a Presidential candidate would make. It offers no solutions to the problems with the media other then what appears to be a decent attempt to address the problems and make people aware of them. VP Gore (true 2000 President- elect)is very involved in media matters right now and has his own media venture going. Mr Gore has nothing to lose by speaking out bluntly and something to gain. He was promoting "multi-way conversations" operating "according to a meritocracy of ideas".
VP Gore also has nothing to lose because he isn't beholding to any degree to people who might have elected him-he no longer holds a public office.As any private citizen, he is free to speak his mind and promote any ideas he so choses. And, I agree to a great degree that he has hit bulls-eyes on much of what he has spoke out about in the last two years yet, I think it is unfair to hold it against other Dem's because they do not speak out with the same bluntness as Gore does. Elected officials are under more direct pressure to tread lightly and hold their tongue for fear of being discredited or maligned. They also risk angering others that they have to get along with in order to accomplish their objectives and to gain support for their measures.
Finally, I think it's easier to support Gore right now than it is to support Kerry, because he is anti-Iraq War and seems so outspoken. Remember though, that Gore was actually very DLC and held very moderate views on most important issues. He even supported restraints on freedom of expression in the music media by supporting his wife's crusade against objectionable lyrics.

One other thing, there is a poster in GD and GDP who I believe is trying their darnedest to shake our base here in the Kerry group simply because Kerry doesn't behave the way they want him to. I think this may be playing a part in forming some opinions on Kerry- which is the objective of this person. I don't have any answers, but I do know that John Kerry is right their in the thick of things and he does actually know what is going on. I do not think for one minute that he is holding back on speaking out more forcefully against this war for his own personal gain.I don't think he is a war monger. He is responding in his own way,with consideration of what is best for our country and Iraq, and only he knows when it is the right time for him to come out fighting. Let them keep demanding that Kerry do things as they wish, a true leader has to make hard decisions and some of those decisions may be unpopular ones. Please try to keep the faith.

[Mass]

14. I know who you are speaking about and I think he is rather honest

He is a issue unique voter and has been for a while now, and I think he is disappointed by Kerry not speaking out on Iraq (particularly as he recognizes that Kerry understands the problem - Contrarely to others, he does not believe Kerry is a warmonger).

I have to say that his silence is very frustrating. I will not stop to support him for that, but I really wished he would say something. There is nothing to be won staying silent at this point (I am talking about for the country and not politically speaking). I was happy that he called Bush on the fact that other should not criticize him. Now is the time for Kerry to do so. Sometimes, a leader has to speak out, and we know that Kerry knows that.

[karynnj]

15. At this point, there have been tantalizing little statements

even in his comments on Byrd about Iraq. Especially around the time he spoke at Brown, there were comments that seem to indicate that he was near a major shift in his position.

At this point, I trust that he is doing something - whether talking to people in the military, talking to contacts he has around the world (he did question the number of Japanese troops and had spoken to their ambassador.) It may also have something to do with what is happening here or in Iraq.

I don't feel the same sense of urgency some do here because he is not the President. Nothing will happen immediately no matter what he says or how well he says it. So, if he waits another week or so, the Iraqis will have voted. The various scenarios depend on what happens with that vote. It may be that it will be easier to explain the situation and make a reccomendation without explaining several possibilities.

I also wonder if he is involved behind the scenes with other Democrats.

[wisteria]

16. Oh, I don't disagree that this person is being honest, but

it is very unfair to single out Kerry and also to believe that your way is the only correct way.This person has made what,IMO amounts to threats of posting flame bait against Kerry, in an attempt to discredit him. Truth is one thing, but ridiculous articles based on assumptions and not based on facts - is very nasty. What is the difference between what this person is threatening to do and what the repubs do? Perhaps, this person feels their cause justifies their actions, but you have to draw a line somewhere.Of course, the threats to discredit Kerry do not raise to the level of bodily harm, but consider this. Pro-lifers claim they are justified in breaking into clinics and threatening doctors simply because they say they are saving lives.
I'm impatient too.I want some Dem leadership to emerge quickly and I would prefer it to be Kerry. However, I think they are waiting for the outcome of the vote on the Constitution,I'm thinking of the one coming up this month,not the December vote.There is still that hope, that optimism, that things will get better in Iraq and improvement will be accelerated after the votes. Their holding out has all to do with benefiting the US and Iraq- not Bush. I am also getting the feeling Kerry was asked to hold off in expressing his opinion(outrage), so that the Dem's can present a united front when they do finally come out against it and declare we are not winning we are losing,and we need to bring this war to a conclusion.

[Mass]

19. I think you're right concerning holding off

and I feel sorry he accepted, that's all. I am happy that others have, like Durbin or Byrd , are not holding off.

As for the poster, I personnally accept all the opinions as long as they are well thought and his are. I think he is disappointed by Kerry's silence on the issue (and as I say, this is not because he believes RW's BS, this is because he knows better and knows that Kerry is not an hawk and understands the link between oil and foreign policies). He may be right or wrong, but I think he deserves a lot more respect that many other on GDP who just dislike Kerry on a knee-jerk reflex. He is always ready to say when he agrees with him and that is the only thing you can ask somebody. Just MHO.

[rox63]

29. I like politicians with big brains

And those who see the big picture. I think that can be said for both Kerry and Gore. All I'm saying is if I'm faced with a Dem primary ballot that has both of their names on it in 2008, I will be torn about who to vote for. I'm one of those lucky folks who has had Kerry as my Senator for over 20 years now. I've always supported him, and I continue to support him. I'm a bit perturbed at the thought that, if he runs for prez in 2008 and loses, not only won't he be our president, he will also no longer have any elected office. His current Senate term is up in 2008, and he can't run for both President and Senate here in MA.

[TheDonkey]

18. Gore's a fine man. Shouldn't be ashamed to support him at all

I'll stick with Kerry or Biden but I look forward to all the primary candidates.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. I really don't understand the sudden urgency here.

I don't understand why all of a sudden people are starting to demand that Kerry say something now. Honestly, doesn't it piss us all off when the nuts in GD start with their "where are the DEMS!!!" and their demands for an instant timeline? Why now does Kerry face the ire of some of you for not giving a policy speech on Iraq right now?

He's a prosecutor. He assembles his case, waits for the opportune moment, and hammers it home. When he thinks it's the right time, I'm sure he'll say something. What difference does it make if he gives a speech now or three months from now? It's not like anything will have happened in those three months that his speech would've changed, seeing as he's not the president.

I have to admit these threads today have kind of pissed me off. You have to understand how Kerry works. Just because he isn't doing it right this second doesn't mean he won't. And I just utterly fail to see the urgency here, when his speech isn't going to suddenly inspire Bush to pull out the troops or something.

[jillan]

21. Maybe because this country is in such a fcking mess, Maybe because

* is going to get another 50 bill for Iraq tomorrow, while poverty in America is up, and what we saw in Nola. The price of gas, everything.

And Maybe because I voted for Kerry, I want him to take charge. I want him to be in * face. 1/2 of this country voted for Kerry. (so they say - I believe it was more, much more) I don't want Kerry's silence. I want to see and hear Kerry speak out. Everything he has said would happen if * got re-elected, has happened. * #s are in the toilet.
Say it again Kerry, just like you did last year, but in a different context. You said that this would happen in Iraq. You were right.

[Mass]

22. Happy to see we agree - I feel less like a traitor.

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. So will you believe in him less if he doesn't give a speech this week?

Sorry to be snarky, but this thread is starting to take on the tone of some Kerry threads in GD. He has spoken about tons of times since the election, and I'm sure an Iraq speech will come along sooner or later. Meanwhile, he's busting his ass for us - the LIHEAP amendment being the latest example. He's busting his ASS, and the least he deserves is some recognition for that from his supporters, of all people.

[Mass]

24. DId anybody say they dont believe in him or less?

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. I don't really know what to think.

I know I'm seeing people say, basically, that he's not doing enough, and that they'd consider other Democrats at this point. I think it's ridiculous to say that Kerry's not doing enough.

[Mass]

27. Not saying that he is not DOING enough, but that he is not TALKING enough

and I am certainly not considering somebody else at this point. Even if I think that, Kerry is by far the pol whose vision I agree with the most. If anything, I regret that he was not able to develop it better during the campaign. I think he would have won easily.

[jillan]

26. No - I love Kerry. I'm not turning on him. I would never ever post this

in GD. It's an honest, open discussion between us. I would vote for him tomorrow if I could.

I just want more from him, that's all!

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. I think he'll do an Iraq speech

But, like everything else he does, it'll be on his time and terms. And when he does, it'll be spot on like everything else he does. I have come to expect no less from him.

I guess I just don't really think about it because I know he'll deliver. He always does.

[TayTay]

30. In all honesty, I think something came up

I think the Dem Caucus on Wed. had some issues in it that the Dems thought HAD to be dealth with and quickly. I think they talked about Kerry's LIHEAP amendment and about supporting Mary Landrieu down the line. I really do. The actions last night prove it.

Iraq is important, but so are other things and it is tragic that we are in an era when life and death is pitted against, well, life and death. Sigh! I think the Dems made a strategic decision to fight the Rethugs on aid to the Gulf area and asked people to focus on that.

And Iraq speech from Kerry can be done next week, during the break. I want to hear, because I like the guy and he's wicked smaht. But I also want Dems to act like Dems and fight like hell for the poor and middle-class. Hey, I got my wish last night on one thing.

[jillan]

32. What wish came true?

[TayTay]

33. Well, today and last night the Dems spoke in a unified voice

I know they ultimately lost, but this is the 109th (Weasel) Congress and they do not have the numbers to win. But they had the chutzpah to stick together and vote as a block on a core Democratic issue. In once case it was properly sending out aid money to a state that is in desperate straights. They made Frist and Vitter go over to the House and at least try and negotiate with the Rethugs there for better terms. They brought up the fact that $20 billion dollars that went to New York City after the 9/11 tragedy was ulitmaely forgiven. The money going to NOLA and LA is a loan. Why do the people of NOLA and LA rate so much less than NYC, even when their request was for $1 billion? Thanks to the Senate Dems for fighting this battle.

The Rethug House pulled another rat-like maneuver today when it held a vote open until they managed to flip a Rethug vote from nay to yeah. Totally against the rule, but Rethugs don't care. This bill loosened environmental measures in the Gulf area and was another give-away to the oil and gas companies. Billions for the corporations, but nothing for the citizens. It's the REthug way. But the Dems chanted 'Shame, Shame, Shame' at the REthugs for their nasty vote trick. No Dem voted for this sham bill. Not one.

This is good news. I know we lost, but we are outnumbered in the Weasel Congress. You take your good news where you can find it.

[jillan]

34. Hear! Hear!

Last nite was awesome - did it ever make it to the media?
It just kinda happened. No one came back to the floor.

And today - wooo - that is a cause for a celebration.

I think I'm gonna have a drink or two:toast:

[ginnyinWI]

31. agree--we've been through this before

Everybody wants Kerry to say something about some issue, and he doesn't and everyone is worried. Then he does step up and gives a shining, brilliant speech on the topic and we are all happy. But as a rule we are usually on a more impatient timetable.

He seems to like to take the time to get it right, and it shows. ;)