BREAKING: Kerry "not aware" of 2004 presidential campaign

September 25th 2007, 4:28 pm

Kerry: I was not aware that a campaign had occurred

Following allegations that he was involved in a 2004 campaign for president, John Kerry issued a statement today clarifying his obscure role in the incident.


Kerry also noted that he spent much of 2004 standing on stages or inside auditoriums, apparently referring to the well-known phenomenon in which a person on stage is unable to see or hear events happening right in front of them.


John Kerry reacts to news
that he actually ran for
president in 2004

For their part, most long-time Kerry supporters took the news in stride. "I know a lot of people were disappointed, but John Kerry is only one man," said Melissa Torinelli, regional spokesperson for The Senator McDreamy Foundation. "I'm sure had he known what was going on he would have acted differently. But, seriously, did anyone expect him to just jump into the fray and start raising important questions or responding to slanderous attacks? I mean, it's not like he's a superhero."

this should keep you busy.

That rather explains alot, actually.

As are mine and everyone else who posts repeatedly for or against an issue or a lawmaker.

Doesn't exactly sound like a priority to me, especially given the fact the Kerry was in the news this month. You have 61 out of 153. Who's priorities are we talking about here?

Now let's check a month when Kerry wasn't making news, say the previous 30-day stretch. Me: 3 posts out of 335. You? 6 out of 27.

Care to make some more comments on my priorities?

and defending Kerry is a key part of that because BushInc has every intention of getting away with revising history to their benefit and Kerry has long been one of the few Democrats who worked to expose their operations over the last three decades.

In my view those who join BushInc in that goal are wrong and sometimes suspect in their motivations.

Gee - why would any Democrat be worried about undermining from within the party after all these years of having people like McAuliffe and Carville and Penn in positions of power?

or more.

Well, you will be the first one in my ignore list. No time to lose with that.

eh?

Has the same funny style or did you do it?

But yeah, you can blame me for this one.

Good job.

Oops, now I've done it.

If you didn't like it so be it. What IS stupid is the people that get upset about it.

going to just let this garbage lie here.

I won't hold my breath. You've never been particularly successful in your continued attempts to censor posts you disapprove of.

I lol'ed.

who exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history, and that you believed it was important to support BushInc, the DC powerstructure, and their media mouthpieces by continually slamming Kerry at every turn.

Then wonder aloud how the fascists got their agenda through on YOUR watch.

at Kerry. That's all. Explain to the next generation, what exactly? That he posted a satirical piece on a message board?

snap out of it. it's not nearly that big a deal.

a bit moldy and frayed around the edges at this point. Hello and welcome to 2007, nearly three years away from the 2004 election.

It's also mean spirited. Hasn't the man taken enough abuse, not to mention his supporters. He's not even running for president this time. Could we possibly get off the man's back?

Some of these people have spent time with the man, by the way. Even had that mythological beer with him. Tends to up your emotional investment if you know what I mean.

In other words, "no one suffers more than John Kerry and his supporters"?




Just adding a bit of perspective...

No, let me guess. John Kerry shot her daddy.

I suppose I should find it funny. After all, who said death wasn't funny, eh? I would think you'd find this picture a hoot then.

I didn't say we were laying around wearing our guts for garters. But it gets a bit old after a while, esp. when it's an old wound and you've decided to pick it open again.

We're in the middle of a new primary season. Why not get into that, instead of reliving the 2004 election.

And, of course, if Kerry had had the stones to really fight for our votes, maybe her dad WOULD be alive today -- along with about 1500 American G.I.s. And a few thousand residents of the Gulf Coast. Who knows?

What I do know is that a sitting member of the US Senate is not gonna be fussed by my little piece of satire. And anyone on this board who has a problem with it should probably just get the hell over themselves.

this was supposed to be a joke on your part remember? Why the fuck are you extrapolating to this when somebody takes issue with your post. You aren't adding a bit of perspective, you're being an ass.

Actually, I can do both.

Edit: But...point taken I think Beelzebud had a much better response to these types of posts. See #39.

John Kerry or you making fun of him whatsoever. Why you chose to put up a picture of a terrified Iraqi kid with blood splatters behind her on the wall and presumably the legs of her dead or arrested parents, relatives, guardians etc. in what was essentially a joke thread is what I take issue with.

I agree with you on that post. I let my annoyance get the better of me, and I wouldn't have used that picture had I thought about it for more than a minute.

for misunderstanding you. Thank you.

didn't tell my hubby about that one. But it was a REALLY nice dream!

and it was quickly exposed that the exit polls were right(as they always are) and Karl Rove had easily changed all of the numbers, diebold and electronic voting was eliminated and the US went back to paper ballots hand counted with paper trails to read and re-read and our Democracy was saved.

I had a dream that Kerry was then forced by public pressure to get our troops out of Iraq and we began to focus on the homeless and other needy people in our country.

But seriously: nail, meet hammer. Excellent point.

you're having waay too much fun with this, son.

on GD seriously.

And whether the playmates you rounded up know it or not, this thread you started is NOT a joke to you - you take seriously your self-designated role as a Kerry hater who wants him pushed out of the public debate completely.

And I don't care who thinks you're just joking.

And if it was a joke, then why is it on GD instead of the Lounge?

That's just flat-out ridiculous. It's clear that many people got the joke and you didn't. So what? I've made many of these fake-news posts, all of them in GD. This is the first time I've skewered Kerry in one of them, but the inspiration struck and I went with it.

If you really feel that GD is no place for humor, could you please point out all of your posts attacking the people who made fun of Andrew Meyer last week? Or is it only Kerry humor that you object to?

I am and react accordingly.

this was NOT in fun - the 'fun' is just another way to get away with it.

Oblige away.

Step 1: CONSTANT TARGETING OF KERRY

Step 2: ??

Step 3: PROFIT.

then you'd have to admit that you could be wrong - so you go out of your way to mock him and smear him, even if it means joining with the RW machine and their Democratic enablers who have been marginalizing one of the few voices this nation has left who stands against the fascist agenda and respects the citizens' right to the truth about its governance.

From what I saw last week, he's pretty good at standing in front of the fascist agenda. He could have stood against it, but instead he had his version of the "My Pet Goat" moment.

give him better film footage.

Kerry was the one acting decently towards Meyers.

YOU join with over 30 years of RW lies and spinning against Kerry to get his voice shut down.

Whether you realize it or not.

And since when is it a RIGHT WING tactic to object to the police intervening in a conversation between a citizen and a senator? And is it asking too much of Kerry that he simply say "hey -- leave him alone"?

No, instead he stood there, droning on and making jokes at Meyers' expense. That's a guy I want standing up for my rights.

is revise what happened to fit YOUR storyline against Kerry - just as the GOP machine has done for decades and still does.

While Meyers is being wrestled to the ground by the cops, Kerry is up on stage MAKING JOKES at his expense. He clearly says "the young man isn't available to come up on stage and swear me in as president", which gets a number of nervous chuckles from the crowd.

This shows Kerry was absolutely aware of what was happening and he was making a typical tone-deaf ham-handed attempt to distance himself from it.

Does it appear the least fishy that the first video out was Meyer's and it was up on his web even before he was out of jail?

Look at it carefully - they were moving him to the back of the room. Why, to get him out of the hall. At the end, they all move into the last row - and that is where he was tasered. Who do you think wanted to go in that direction - to prevent the cops from getting him out of the room?

Kerry WAS aware that he was being taken out of the room - and there was plenty of cause. A couple of AUDIO tapes were posted here that night - he would have and should have been thrown out of any rally or forum. There were more than nervous chuckles.

Are you really saying that only humble, courteous people have free speech rights?

And no, he wouldn't have been thrown out of any forum. Not even close. If you think that, you can't have attended that many progressive political forums.

freedom to speak anywhere anytime. Could you suddenly go on stage at a Broadway show? Meyer could have spoken until the end of time in his room or in many other spaces. This was not a political forum, it was a speech and a question and answer session. Who do you think the other kids wanted to hear?

How old are you that never learned that this would be inappropriate?

Are you truly comfortable with splitting hairs to that degree when it comes to our First Amendment rights? Do you really want to rely on what you thought was the definition of the discussion? That he was only allowed to speak in a designated "political forum", and not at a question and answer session?

How old are you that you never learned rudimentary civics?

I never said the questions had to be limited to one issue. The point was that he was told he could ask A question and he was limited to a short time. Had he stopped after asking the first question - even as rudely as he did, and let the Senator answer it - people would have got an answer. Kerry had started to answer it as he has every question he was ever asked. You may not have liked the answer, but he would have given one.

Again - he wasn't asking a question and then quietly listening to the answers. He was asking RHETORICAL questions in a rude rant far exceeding the time any other questioner was allowed. The people running the event, not Kerry, cut him off. As I said, how long do you think he should have been allowed to go on? The people there came to hear Kerry, not Meyer. They had a right to tell him his 2 minutes were up. Most politicians wouldn't have given him that - including many you like.

I know and understand civics quite well. No one denied Meyer's freedom of speech, what they denied him was a captured audience. If they wanted to here more form Kerry, they could not leave. Could he get over 600 people to come to listen to him had he set up his own forum?

Tell me, how could he run past his two minute limit when he only spoke for a minute, forty seconds? Time it on the video if you don't believe me.

And since when does the 1st Amendment have a two-minute warning? Why don't you just admit it: you're OK with his arrest because you didn't like his questions and you didn't like the way in which he asked them. I thought he was kind of a dick myself, but I understand that free speech also applies to people I don't approve of.

This is the cornerstone of the 1st Amendment. Why do you think that preserving decorum is more important than preserving civil rights?

Before the video, from audio that was posted here and the student accounts
1) He ran from the back of the line to the front, with the police running after him (likely because they would do that to anyone unexpectedly running towards the stage.) Even at this point he was shouting at the police.
2) Kerry spoke to the police at that point, asking them to leave him and said he would answer his question after he finished with the answer that was interrupted.
3) The guy then started a rant, mentioned the Palast book - which Kerry said he read. He then led into an explanation of the book. Asked to get to the question, he then said that people had listened to Kerry's "crap" for two hours, they had to listen to him for 2 minutes. Then he asked the election question. Kerry started to answer - and Meyer than started shouting again and he asked his second question and then without pausing a second continued to rant. At that point the mic was cut and the tape began.

The problem is you watched a video produced by Meyer and friends that did not have any of the initial provocation, that was up on his web site before he was out of jail. Kind of makes this look like a stunt. The tape was also filmed near Meyer. Kerry, who calmed the crowd and continued the event is far less audible on the tape than Meyer. Kerry was speaking into a microphone. As the distance from Kerry to Meyer's was greater than the distance between Kerry and the person video taping, it is very easy to conclude that the screams you heard on the tape were considerably less audible than Kerry's voice on the tape. (Simple laws of science - the sound was of lower volume at the source and it had to traverse a longer distance.) Given that he was screaming at the police, the event host, and Kerry for the entire time, that he was at a distance screaming would not be note worthy.

The fuller accounts - not from Kerry or any of us - were posted late in the evening it happened. Video can distort and this one did. (I do think the police over reacted in tasering him.)

Kerry had NO problem with the questions. Because the gospel according to Meyer didn't include it, you can't see that Kerry started to answer it. Very few people would have let him ask a question in the first place, much less to tell the police he was willing to answer it - even after the rudeness.

Watch this analysis. It may open your eyes a bit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hOlmNBxke-E

I can't wait to hear your justification for this one. It should be a hoot.

First of all Savino is at HIS rally speaking, Meyer is hijacking a student event. I think the young guy near the police is the head of group that organized it, but could be wrong as I saw the guy on TV for only seconds. The police were behind him because of the still earlier behavior, the young guy clearly wanted it stopped, likely because he wanted his event back. They were likely considering whether to cut him off. Where were they looking -my best quess, at a University official who had the power to make the decision.

I see nothing in the actual footage that changes anything. You should open your eyes and see that Kerry tried to calm the kid down and engage in a discussion with him saying he had the Palast book and had read it. Kerry was speaking to him. He then started to go into details, rather than ask a question - he was Talking at Kerry, rather than asking him what he thought, instead blocking him from speaking - except over a rant, which Kerry didn't do. Kerry was, at that point, far more courteous to Meyer than Meyer was to him. Very few politicians would have let him have as much a say as Kerry did. Did you have a problem with Howard Dean screaming at a 70 year old heckler in Iowa to "Sit Down!"? Your problem should be with the police - not Kerry.

"Meyer is hijacking a student event"

Asking a question during the question and answer period does not constitute arrest-worthy "hijacking".


"I think the young guy near the police is the head of group that organized it"

Which gives him power to direct the police...why?


"because he wanted his event back"

This wasn't "HIS" event. He's holding a political discussion on a federally-funded college campus. That makes it "OUR" event.


"a University official who had the power to make the decision"

Again, since when does a "University official" have the power to order an arrest?


"I see nothing in the actual footage that changes anything."

I'm going to die of not surprise.


"he was Talking at Kerry, rather than asking him what he thought"

So? Is it free speech only if it's followed by a question mark?


"Kerry was, at that point, far more courteous to Meyer than Meyer was to him."

Good for Kerry. He's a 64-yr-old US Senator and Meyer is a 21-yr-old college kid. I'm guessing if Kerry had been rude you'd have wanted him arrested too?


"Very few politicians would have let him have as much a say as Kerry did."

Would have "let him"???? You have a very strange idea of how the 1st Amendment works. (And, BTW, I've seen many politicians handle monopolizers far better than Kerry did)


"Your problem should be with the police - not Kerry."

Yes, and my problem should be with George Bush, not Kerry. Or Terry McCauliffe, not Kerry, Or the Swift Boaters, not Kerry. Or the MSM, not Kerry. Or Or Or...

Do you think John Kerry has responsibility for ANYTHING? Or is he just an innocent spectator, standing by while all this infuriating shit goes on around him???

Kerry's speech on Iraq and other foreign policy issues was what they came to hear. They did not come to hear Meyer, who could have ashed a question and told people he would lead a discussion on it at some time and place. Assume that someone you like had a speech that was on a topic you were interested in and someone decided that he should be allowed to speak on a different topic, my guess is you would be the first to object.

The university president can not order an arrest, he can demand someone be evicted. He was arrested because he fought the police when he was told to leave. As to Kerry, if he had been rude to him the consequence would be that it would be on the news. Would he be arrested? If he flouted the orders of the police, yes, he would. You might recall that in 1972, he did get arrested in Lexington with all the other vets. The vets all surrendered peacefully and politely - as Kerry led them to do. Kerry at the DC vet event, spent the days calming the vets down and arbitrating situations where people were starting to have run-ins with the police.

Give me a couple of examples of politicians who would allow a person like this as much time to speak and stay civil.

Is that what your civil rights are worth to you? A minute-forty?


If you recall, Bill Clinton had an event where an anti-abortion nutcase started heckling him and he got off the stage and talked to her. I've seen Jerry Brown, Howard Dean and even Ronald Reagan handle hecklers better than Kerry did.

Let's be clear: Kerry's problem was not that he was "uncivil". His problem was that he stood idly by while a political speaker was taken into custody right in front of him. So much for swearing to uphold the constituion...

and tell a 70 year old man to "sit down".

I saw Kerry in a 2006 CSPAN show deal with someone who asked if Jane Fonda was going to help him with his cut and run plan, Kerry simply said "NO" and then in a civil voice explained what the various features of K/F were. He then had a conversation with the guy's wife and son about goat farming which they did and Kerry's step son raises goats as well. When Kerry moved to the next cluster of people, he followed him and told him he had a son in Iraq and shook Kerry's hand as Kerry thanked him and offered wishes that his son would be home safely soon.

Nothing in the constitution gives Meyer the right to keep spaking after the people running the event said for him to stop. Kerry spoke to the police, but he did not have the authority to interfere. The tasering at the end was likely wrong - but arresting someone who rejects a direct command of the police is a pretty normal thing to do.

I thought so...

Is it your contention, based on the video you posted, that the campus cops are also Skull and Bones? That they knew what this kid was about to say, somehow?

Still don't get how this is Kerry's fault.

Why would the campus police give a damn about protecting Kerry politically?

They're not his private security force.

He had nothing to do with it - in fact for most people, there would not have been the first intervention by Kerry and the police would simply have taken him out as they planned. That has happened in many events. Oddly, letting him speak somehow leads you to say that this guy was denied his freedom of speech.

Kerry has had events for 39 years and this is the only one where something like this happened. This could have happened at any event of any person - Meyer went with the intent of doing this and even had people with access to his website to get the stuff up quickly and to get the Herald to link to it.

And that's the really sad part. John Kerry, a former protester himself, stood by while the cops moved in and broke up a political discussion. You can "Rodney King" that video all you want, but that's the bottom line: there was a political discussion and the cops intervened. And Kerry -- a US Senator standing on a stage with a microphone in his hand -- said and did nothing.

he did nothing. But he did say something. He told the cops he wanted to answer the question.

But you seem to be indicating that the cops were somehow politically motivated. Isn't that rather far fetched? That video you posted definitely is trying to make that point. But why would the campus cops care about Kerry politically?

The cops' intent was to stop a disruption, not to stop the flow of ideas. To them it was just an event they were working, just like any other event political or not.

As was Kerry when he decided to say nothing while the kid was arrested.

A discussion by definition involves more than one person. He did not LET Kerry have a discussion with him - he let no one speak but himself. Kerry did speak to the police, but when they continued to take him out - Kerry turned to calming the room. Meyer could have just asked the question, without the rant - and actually have heard an answer. That was not his intent.

Kerry protested in a very different way, respecting the rules. That is why the Nixon team feared him. If you pictured him a buddy of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, you are completely mistaken - he never had any use for them. He got all the needed permits for the protest in DC. The only thing they did against the law was sleep on the mall - and they were prepared to be arrested for that. He also made peace between the police and the vets when there was potential trouble. He also was INVITED to speak to the Senate. Kerry considered accepting being arrested part of protesting.

To compare Kerry's dedication and protest in 1971 to this attention hound shows a lack of sense.

How rude does someone have to be before the police can stop them from speaking out on an issue? How mainstream or popular does their point of view need to be before you would grant them the right to speak?

You, just you, have decided that Meyer's behavior justified being removed from that hall. You feel that a one minute, forty second speech is just too much too bear, the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (look up that history if you want a real shocker).


Of course, I don't think you really believe any of that. If that kid was up there harassing George Bush or <gasp> James Carville, you'd be first in line cheering him on. It's just that THIS time it was your political idol, so you didn't like it. And still you can't see why this is the heart of the 1st Amendment.

Although I doubt that Bush would allow some one to speak - as Kerry did. You still don't get the point - this was not an open forum. It was a chance for people to hear Kerry. You may not think that interesting, but you would not have to go. Like others, Meyer was allowed to ask a question - no one is saying it can't be rude or what the topic had to be. What he was not entitled to was to take over the forum when he was told by the people running the event that his time was over.

The first amendment gives you the freedom to speak - it does not say you can take over every pulpit you want. Could he go into a Broadway show and take over a mic and start his comment? Or decide to give the sermon in a church?

Kerry did let him speak - and did not in any way stop him.

So...anyone could attend and there was a mic set up for people to ask questions. Yet it somehow was not appropriate that someone stepped up to that mic -- after waiting for Kerry to finish his speech (THAT must have been painful) -- and started asking questions.

You are the one who is characterizing his actions as "taking over the forum". What I saw was someone speaking with passion, speaking for a short amount of time (I notice you've abandoned your "two-minute" canard) and then leaving off the discussion as the mic was cut. I also saw a decision being made to arrest him BEFORE he even finished speaking.

Your analogies are similarly bogus. A better analogy would be if the parishioners were invited to come step up to the mic and say a prayer, or if the cast of a show had allowed audience questions once the performance was over. Of course, a Q&A with actors is not even close to that of a citizen petitioning a member of the government -- something specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.

Here's that part of the first amendment, in case you missed it.



So let's apply this scenario to other parts of the first amendment: Would you be comfortable with the police coming into a pulpit and arresting the preacher? Or how about if they decided a Broadway show was "rude" and came on stage to stop it?

What Meyer was doing was every bit as protected as that sermon or that show. It is sacred in this country. The fact that the police and a sitting Senator couldn't see that is what is so sad and shocking about the incident.

Here are is a personal account from someone there, who was willing to give her name:



This is the point of view of a student, who agrees with the decision of Accent to cut the mic. He had been given ample time to ask questions - and clearly wasn't stopping. He was not given the stage for an unlimited amount of time. The problem is that you, from your comment that it was "hard" to listen to Kerry's speech on international diplomacy, give less value to the purpose of this event than to Meyer getting a forum. Frankly, the people there came because they wanted to hear the Kerry speech and possibly meet him. They did not come to hear Meyer lecture form Palast's book and I assume the demand for a Meyer lecture would not have been high - but if it is he can do it in his place and time. It is clear that he could have asked the same question (hopefully more succinctly) and gotten an answer. The University, not Kerry, chose to throw him out. Especially after Kerry said he would answer, he could have peacefully walked out and his question would have been asked and answered - and he likely would have heard it as he walked out.

The police likely over-reacted both in taking him out - while Kerry said to the officers he would answer the question - and for tasering him. The university had a right to remove him, even if letting Kerry handle the situation would have been better (and was clearly what Kerry wanted). Once the police were taking him out and he was resisting, it would have been irresponsible and possibly illegal for the Senator to directly challenge the police as it could have led to a fight between students and the police.

I agree, and I think your post is hilarious.

We can always use more people who like my sense of humor. They seem to be increasingly rare these days.

You are one of my favorites actually, but that Calvin might have something to do with it as well.

reference to the shared experience of having a pretty disruptive person removed. Kerry did calm the crowd and continue with remarks.

Meyer's created a scene at Kerry's expense. He misbehaved - he shouldn't have been tasered, but this was not just a kid acting a tough quateion.

Kerry's "joke" was just that, a joke at Meyer's expense, making light of his very serious question. The fact that it happened while the kid was being handcuffed made it that much more shameful.

I still don't understand this authoritarian impulse around here. Let's say for argument's sake that he DID create a scene at Kerry's expense. Why did that give the cops the right to put their hands on him? And why did Kerry think he could just stand around while the kid was arrested?

I think the bar has to be set very, very high before the state can use force to break up a political discussion. It's sad that Kerry and many people on DU don't seem to share that senitment.

He hijacked the stage for several minutes and continued to scream out questions and comments after his mic was cut. He asked the election question first after some pretty obnoxious comments that insulted Kerry and the audience. Kerry then started to answer that VERY SERIOUS QUESTION, but Meyer interrupted him after 2 or 3 words. This was not a political discussion - this was a man shouting at the guest speaker. If he wanted the answer so badly, the best way to get it was to shut up and listen. When he continued to yell after the mic was cut - he was asked to leave, and then moved out by the police. When they were taking him out he resisted.

The people running the event and the police, ignored Kerry's comment that he would answer and the police continued to remove him.

The other 699 people did not come to auditorium for the Andrew Meyer show, they came to hear Senator Kerry speak on foreign policy. How many minutes do you think they should have given Meyer - as it was it was 5 or 6 minutes, when he was forcibly stopped. Should he get 10 minutes?, 15 minutes?, 2 hours? Kerry went as far as it was reasonable to go - He was not going to challenge the police taking him out.

Let's say you went to an event you set up and had invited a guest you were proud to have there- and were enjoying it. Then some RW clown came in and took over the stage and wouldn't leave, wouldn't you feel that that was ok? This was not even a political event, but a serious foreign policy lecture.

You do know that freedom of speech also applies to people you don't like and speech you don't approve of, don't you?

Your characterization of the incident is inaccurate, to say the least. But even with your skewed narrative, there is nothing in your scenario that required that the police intervene. I've been at several conferences where far worse monopolization took place and no one got tasered.

1) He asked them to let him ask a question - in said he started into a rant. 2) When the police started to remove him, Kerry said he would answer his question.

The police continued to remove him and he resisted arrest and continued to create a disturbance. At that point, Kerry could have created MORE problems by verbally or physically trying to intervene - and other students could have been hurt. Free speech does not give him the right not to be ejected if he creates a disturbance. How you think that Kerry could make out from that distance that he was tasered is beyond me. Did you notice that the vast majority of the eye witnesses did not take his side - even verbally.

I don't know how someone even begins to defend that.

But, while you're defending the indefensible, maybe you can explain Kerry's "botched joke" about having the kid come up on stage and swear him in while the police were wrestling him down to the floor and handcuffing him. How does that fit with the caring, crusading superhero image you have of Senator McDreamy?

I really hope this works. I'd hate having to go back to that underpants thing.

The Right ridicules Kerry day in and day out because they know he is a threat. They can't go after him on real facts, so they resort to ridicule. But what the hell is a poster on DU doing that for? That's what I'd like to know.

Which enables their agenda - whether they realize it or not.

"Bush misled us into war" - Kerry saying it was not a war of last resort.

Kerry calling for Regime change here. kerry arguing for diplomacy before Bush went to war.

This shows who and what you are - you are not a reality based person.

for a president to have"

You don't really want to start trading quotes from the 04 campaign, do you?


Here's another of his greatest hits: "We will fight for every vote. And we will carry our cause all across this land." How's that one working out for you?

Isn't that a Right-Wing tactic? You just state some opinion as if it's true and tell your opponents to SHUT UP! SHUT! UP!

No one says you have to like what I post. Hell, we have plenty of methods on this board to assure that you never have to see one of my posts again. But instead you insist on following threads like this and posting the same tired responses again and again.

And in case you haven't noticed, most of the Right Wing is supporting Kerry in this latest tasering incident. What does that tell you?

as he was the only one trying to stop it - Meyers and the police were the ones ignoring Kerry's request to let Meyers say his piece.

You know that, but you persist in using the RW tactic of mockery and smearing of Kerry because you want him to be shut down and silenced within DC just as BushInc and the DC powerstructure have been manipulating dissent against him for over 30 years.

You can claim you're different all you want, but so did David Horowitz and scores of others who were doing the work of the RW while hitting from the left.

Admit it - you want people on DU to help YOU attack and tear down Kerry - the one lawmaker in DC with the best record of investigating and exposing government corruption and advocating for open governance and respect for citizens' right to know. What does that say about YOUR priorities and view of government?

Seriously, you can spin your apocalyptic GOOD v EVIL fantasies all you want, but the fact is that Kerry has relegated himself to a footnote with his failure to lead. The man is a junior Senator from a relatively small state and nothing more. He will never be a candidate for president again, and it's likely that he's in his last term in the Senate.

You keep pointing out his record of investigating and exposing corruption as if it excuses all his other failures. But that, in itself, is a failure. Where is Kerry today on corruption? What happened to the real backers of BCCI? Want to tell me where James Bath is today?

This alleged crusade against corruption is yet another example of Kerry putting his toe in the water and deciding it's too cold for a swim. He will be remembered as someone who had all the makings of a great man, but none of the courage to put it into action. It's tragic, really.

off their self-preservation.

YOU deny all the crimes of BCCI, IranContra, and CIA drugrunning when you claim they came to nothing just to get in a dig at Kerry.

You know this. But you don't care - your ego trumps decency and logic and the need to accurately preserve the historic record.

If YOU don't care about an accurate depiction of the last three decades, then the RW has indeed won - they won YOU. You support the revised version of BushInc's crimes of office.

Instead of pointing blame to those who helped Bush cover up those crimes, you blame the one person who has ALWAYS been attacked for his work uncovering those crimes. Just as the ruling elite have expected and why they worked for years to control what the citizens learn and the perceptions they absorb.

You're turning into a classic case.

Whether you realize it or not.

Let's hear it for John Kerry! He almost did several things!!



BTW, just out of courtesy I should let you know that you're once again straying into the ridiculous and starting to make yourself look foolish. I deny the crimes of BCCI, IranContra and the CIA??? What form of twisted non-logic led you to that conclusion?

nothing because he is a nonentity and a loser who never deserved the support from the rest of the Dem party for those investigations or his race against Bush - and so he didn't get it, and boy aren't we all better off because of it.

I am so glad the RW has fought Kerry all these years because he is such a nonentity. He should just leave DC. I know MY children will be better off with ALL the government books closed. We certainly don't need any more anti-corruption, open government Democrats in offfice - we just need to push out and marginalize those that are left in DC now - they're nonentities anyway, so who cares.

Is there nothing that Kerry can do or fail to that you won't make excuses for? NO ONE went to jail or even had to resign as a result of Kerry's alleged CIA investigations. The villians of BCCI are running around our government today. Why is that? Why didn't Kerry follow through and demand special prosecutors? Why didn't he pressure Clinton to do more to pursue IranContra criminals. Why the hell do I even have to ask these questions??? A true leader would leave no doubt as to what his actions were.

I can cite several things about John Kerry that I like and respect, from his opposition to the Vietnam War to his initial work on The Kerry Commission to his decision to not run in 2008. Is there anything, ever, that Kerry has done that you have had even the slightest problem with? Or is everything somebody else's fault?

Marginalize Kerry and make him the problem and tall his work gets deep-sixed - just as the fascists need. THAT will suit you just fine, because your intention is to keep ragging on Kerry and helping to distort his record and his efforts - efforts that others wouldn't join and stayed clear of because it was against the DC powerstructure.

And not something lame like "he trusted Terry McAuliffe". My guess is that you can't name a single time where Kerry disappointed you.

left or the right in a high profile way.

Sometimes I DO wish he'd put his ego before the country and its needs, because THAT is something too many Americans seem to appreciate more than diligence and integrity.

I still cannot believe he didn't kick Bush's ass for allowing those purple band-aids.

What did the left do? What did the party do?

They didn't repeat Kerry's attack on the swifts at all. Bush didn't lift a finger to attack Kerry - never had to say a word and never had to say a word to defend himself against the AWOL charges either - the RW machine took care of that. How did the left machine do?

I recall one semi-forceful speech he made, but that was it. He should have been all over Bush for those attacks, and he should have been able to get other Dems to do it as well. He failed at both of those tasks.

had been secured after 2000's rampant fraud, he'd be in office today.

Accurate assessment of blame is crucial - the attacks blaming Gore personally instead of the rampant election fraud assured that election fraud would not be considered a factor in that loss leaving room for the revisers and more room for the repet performance.

The DNC didn't take responsibility at all for the election fraud in 2000, so we ended up with WORSE fraud in 2002 and 2004.

THAT is what would have changed that election - not any different a swift response, since the corpmedia was still handling that for Bush - and Rather's recent admissions confirms that complicity.

BTW - Bush didn't direct Free Republic. RW machine acted on its own because they KNEW what to do. They always do. How did the left's machine do?

I know he won. He won in a freaking landslide. You and I have very different perspectives on what he should have done immediately after he won.

facts that will be in the history books and Congressional records forever:

Kerry worked on the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

Kerry's report on Iran Contra

Kerry's BCCI Investigation

Kerry Amendments, also known as U.S. moneylaundering laws and sanctions

Kerry worked to create theCambodia tribunal to try members of the Khmer Rouge. His tribunal model have been used in other countries

Kerry wrote the original bill that became S-CHIP

Kerry wrote the Duke Cunningham Act to hold members of Congress convicted of a felony accountable

Kerry's famous question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Bruce Springsteen just song about it.

Now, can you tell me one time where Kerry disappointed you? (And "trusting Terry McAuliffe" doesn't count). I'm just curious to see if I'm talking to a blind loyalist or someone who has actually done her homework and has a realistic, nuanced view of the man.

Now that was funny!

I'm going to die of not surprise.