Did Kerry really F up badly?

[buycitgo]

anybody see his refusal to answer the charge that he flipflopped on the 87 billion dollar vote, when challenged on it by Stephie?

they RIDICULED the hell out of him on the show after he said it, saying it was 'Dukakissian' and that it would not stand; that he'd HAVE to answer it?

WHY ON EARTH did he DO that?

why didn't he say what really happpened, that Bush threatened to VETO his own bill?

I cannnot believe I heard him say what he did?

anybody else see that? haven't seen it discussed here

sorry if I missed it

this is a BAD portent for the future

here's what I mean, from Kentuck's thread:

It is not an easy explanation for John Kerry. But to put it in perspective, initially we were told the war was not going to cost anything. The oil revenues would pay for it. They were wrong. Whether they lied, misled, or whatever, they were wrong. Then Bush asks for $87 billion with $20 billion for the troops. At this point in time, they have spent about $450 million dollars of that. That is less than 10% of what they said they needed. Why did they lie about how much they needed?

But when it was presented to Bush that the $20 billion should be taken off the huge taxcut for his wealthy friends, Bush said he would veto the entire bill if that came to his desk. He was the person willing to keep the funds from the troops, not Kerry. Kerry would not have kept the funds from the troops if his vote was decisive. His vote was a simple vote on principle. His principles were stronger than Bush's but it cannot be explained in one simple sentence to counter the charges by the Bush regime.



I'm just stunned he didn't turn this around on Bush

what are they THINKING on his staff?

[Racenut20]

1. I still think his staff are "cheney-ups".

[psyntist]

92. Wiat a second

Where did you get that cheney-ups from?

[buycitgo]

93. if you mean, as in what does it mean?

cheney is the new F word, based on his contretemps with Leahy in the Senate

as in go cheney yourself

[NMDemDist2]

2. we're DOOMED i tell ya DOOMED

i thought they did great on that show as I watch it now

bushco has used $90 million bucks and it ain't sticking

Cheney em

[Pepperbelly]

13. Doomed!

:scared:

[Zomby Woof]

45. please my friend

CEASE and DESIST from befouling a perfectly good word like "fuck" with the name of Cheney. It debases that timeless word when you do that. You ruined an otherwise good sarcastic rebuttal of the paranoid undermining of Kerry we endure every day on here.

And it has always been painfully unfunny and lacking cleverness, even on Day One, which was what? June? Early July?

"FUCK" should never be besmirched by the name of a criminal shithole like Cheney. He is not even worthy of using the word as he did.

[Birthmark]

3. Yeah, now the other guy watching...

...that silly-ass show can vote against Kerry.

Relax.

[buycitgo]

6. uhhhh, both of you don't realize how dangerous this could be

remember what happened in 88?

Dukakis got a HUGE bounce out of his convention....triple what Kerry's getting so far

he REFUSED to deign answer any of the vicious smears against him

if he doesn't do what Clinton did in 92, he's toast, and better wise up to this fact

they still have a hundred million dollars to distort his record

[Birthmark]

30. No.

Circumstances are immensely different. Two things did in Dukakis: His joyride in the tank, and his stammering, incoherent answer to a death penalty question in one of the debates. (Willie Horton didn't help him, either.)

Dukakis was not running against an inept, dishonest incumbent. There are rougly four boatloads of other significant differences as well.

Unknot your panties and back away from the remote. You'll thank yourself later.

[buycitgo]

39. whatever you say, pal

how did he handle the flipflop smear?

he DIDNT

and now that's the impression MOST people in the US have of him

Kerry: flip flop

check the polls

but go right ahead


rest on your laurels

allow the likes of Lieberman and Brazille to carry your water

see where that gets us by September

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. You're expressing your opinions on how YOU saw the interview...

...and evidently, based on what I'm reading in this thread, very few people share your opinion.

Additionally, based on your apparent need to ram this down the throats of every other DU poster, I have to wonder why you're taking this approach.

One more point, "most people" were NOT watching that show this morning. On a national basis, quite a few people were attending church, some were sleeping in, and some were doing anything but watch television.

[buycitgo]

53. fine. guess I made up Kerry's response

guess I made up the panels' RIDICULE of his response, and that they said that answer "would not stand"...quote

ram it down WHOSE throat?

you don't have to like my opinion; don't I get to express it?

great argument about disagreement=correctness

quick, no google:

who were the Senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

was the fact that almost ALL the other senators disagreed with them make them WRONG?

you might try looking up the definition of the word logic sometime

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. Quick...

...who's gone into a major screaming-fit, hair-pulling, panic attack on the DU boards about a tempest in a teacup?

As to your example about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, you might try doing some reading on that subject. The folks that voted for that resolution were given as much correct information as the folks that voted for IWR. The majority of Congress voted for those resolutions because they simply couldn't imagine a President that would lie to them about an issue that put American lives in danger.

But don't let that bit of logic get in the way of your marvelous screaming-fit, hair-pulling, panic attack.

You might try looking up the phrase "irrational panic" sometime.

[buycitgo]

60. again, your lack of logic bespeaks your own foolishly contradictory....

response

funny!

you say the legislators were subject to the same inability to believe a president would LIE to them

well, uh, bud, did they FORGET about LBJ lying to them?

or does that not count?

did they forget Nixon lying all the time?

Reagan?

what are you TALKING about?

try making a logically consisten argument sometime, OK?

and, as far as Gulf of Tonkin goes, you don't know what you're talking about, as usual

the information was OUT there, just as it was for everybody before the run up to this war

mr. reader, try IF Stone for starters

give me a break

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. The more you rant about this, the worse you make your....

...arguments appear.

And no, I'm not going to give you a break.

Speaking of logic, how many of the legislators in Congress today have been members of Congress since the beginning of LBJ's Presidency? You do understand that LBJ became the President nearly forty-one years ago, don't you? If they weren't present during LBJ's Presidency, how far back do most of the members of Congress actually go? Let's take a look, shall we?

Out of 100 Senators currently serving, only two were in office when JFK was assassinated. Four Senators could tell you something first-hand about LBJ. A total of six Senators could tell you something about Nixon and Watergate. A total of nine Senators could talk to you about Jimmy Carter:

EISENHOWER (1952-1960):
Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV)- January 3, 1959

KENNEDY (1960-1963):
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA) - November 7, 1962

JOHNSON (1963-1968):
Hollings, Ernest F. (D-SC) - November 9, 1966
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) - December 24, 1968

NIXON:
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM) - January 3, 1973
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE) - January 3, 1973

CARTER:
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD) - January 3, 1977
Lugar, Richard G. (R-IN) - January 3, 1977
Hatch, Orrin G. (R-UT) - January 3, 1977

Since 1992 and the election of President Clinton, 76 new Senators have been elected to Congress of which 60 still remain.

<http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf>

Additionally, you give these politicians way to much credit for being willing to do actual research or to even pay to have it done. With the exception of a handful of Members, those folks care only about what's currently affecting them and their constituencies. What they know about the history of the institutions to which they have been elected could most probably fit into a small envelope.

Now, what are YOU talking about?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Well, I can see that you are so far gone into your rant that...

...any rational thought is out of the question.

On top of that you have become increasingly more personally abusive and insulting. Had we been face-to-face having a casual conversation, I am quite sure that you would never have said "they're not as ignorant as you are, or as lacking the ability to logically construct support for assertions".

Your insulting comments failed to address the facts I presented in my post. You have made assertions about the Members of Congress that you simply have no way to support. You have simply given them way too much credit for their ability to know history much less analyze it properly. Other than stating that all President's are liars, tell me why you believe that the Members of Congress should have been smart enough to understand what was done to them by the NeoCons soon after 911. Additionally, you must know why Kerry voted for IWR, because he has explained it several times in writing and in public.

Why have you chosen to resort to personal insults during our discussion? Is it because you don't have any way to respond to factual information when it's presented, or is it simply that you don't understand it? Based on your responses to date, I'm forced to accept the latter as the only possible answer. Insults don't equate to better answers...after watching four years of Bush/Cheney, you should know that.

[buycitgo]

86. you're a funny guy

dictionary check again

new word for you

projection

YOU started the insult train, bud, and are revealing some serious personality problems as this continues. so let's get that one PERFECTLY straight, ok?

OK?

again, you can make all the assertions you like about who should know what, and who didn't, but you can't PROVE it, now, can you?

try sticking to facts, like WHO voted for Tonkin resolution, and were they WRONG or not?

you've tossed in all these red herrings, with totally irrelevant "documentation", while ignoring my original point about being in the majority not having anything to do with being right?

and as for why congress should have been "smart enough?"

gee, maybe they could have, like, uh, have their staffs READ some stuff? you know, like, maybe here?

you just don't make sense with that sort of argument. quit trying to psychoanalyze corrupt, venal fools, who care mainly about their own careers

I know we agree on that sort of thing, but you've gone WAY WAY WAY off the deep end on this, my friend

for the last time:

I support Kerry, am working for him, etc etc

just think his tactics are wrong

I fervently hope I AM wrong, and am willing to admit it

[noahmijo]

4. I know this is the biggest issue with me...

I can only hope and pray that he's planning on telling the truth about this right to Bush's face himself during the debates.

Since Bush is all about attacks, everytime Kerry shoots down one attack, * will come up with another and another.

I think what Kerry is doing is letting the current attacks stay unopposed so we hear * and Mr. Potter say them over and over again and spend money on ads that say them again, up till the debates where in less than 2 minutes Kerry will debunk them and * will have no one to run to for help..

[NMDemDist2]

5. hehehe mijo I think you're on to something there n/t

[buycitgo]

9. yeah, right

have you been paying any attention to the mood all over the country?

even Kerry supporters have bought into the fact that he's a flipflopper

polls have shown that swing voters' biggest problem is exactly that

Kerry has done a TERRIBLE job of fighting that one, and if he continues to let them describe him to the public, the debates won't matter any more than they did in 88

this scares the crap out of me

[noahmijo]

15. I don't know of any Kerry supporters that refer to him as a flip flopper

And so far the only sticky issue seems to be the $87 billion which when you think about it can and will blow right back up in *'s face when the truth is told to the masses about that one.

All of his other "flip flops" notice the * barely even goes loud with them anymore because most of the people know they're bullshit.

But this 87 billion issue, it just shows how low and what a scumbag * is, and Kerry is probably just savoring the moment where on national tv in front of the world he gets to say "NO "Mr. President" YOU ARE THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO FUND THE TROOPS!"

[dennis4868]

17. Why would he wait....

to be on NATIONAL tv? Why not repsond to it all the time. whether it is on national tv or not....and This Wekk with Stephie is NATIONAL tv.

[City Lights]

20. My sister-in-law and her husband.

Gore voters in 2000. Anti-bush, however, they are uncomfortable with Kerry because they believe he's a flip-flopper. I was stunned to hear this from them. They claim they don't buy into the bush attack machine, but that they've confirmed his flip-flops through independent sources. They live in MO. I'll continue to work on them before the election.

If Kerry waits to set the record straight until the debates he'll be up against an Al-Gore-invented-the-internet situation. Even people who want to believe him will wonder why he took so long to set the record straight.

[dennis4868]

22. You should let your....

family know that Bush is the KING OF FLIP-FLOPPERS....there are many websites that are entirely devoted to Bush's flip-flops with sources....

[City Lights]

26. They already know. They HATE bush and won't vote for him.

They're just not convinced that Kerry is much better. Like I said, I'm going to continue to work on them until the election. I hope I can convince them that voting for nader is voting for bush. I admit I haven't spoken to them post-convention. I hope they have a better opinion of Kerry after hearing his speech.

[Cleita]

32. If they don't vote for Kerry, they would vote for????

Point out that no matter how uncomfortable they are, they can't let *jr. have another four years because they will then be very uncomfortable just being Americans.

[City Lights]

33. Nader.

I can't believe it either. Like I said, I was shocked to hear them, but I will continue to talk to them about Kerry between now and the election. I'm somewhat confident I can make them see the light.

[liberalcanuck]

84. Give me a break. All this flip-flop bullshit being parroted by everyone

is so bogus. I can't believe everyone is buying into this crap. You gotta give the repukes one thing, they know how to hammer home their spin until it's even repeated verbatim by Democrats.

As Kerry stated in his convention speech, he looks at the world realizing that there are complexities and that sometimes one must take a nuanced position. * looks at the world in either black or white a world of absolutes that does not allow for any great examination of the finer points of a given issue.

I for one don't want to know anyone that lacks the ability to change their mind once in a while. Sometimes, a second, third, and however many revisitations may be required before one can fully see all sides of an issue.

As recently as last night on Bill Maher's show they were ridiculing some repube blowhard for bringing up this ridiculous flip flop shit. We need to stop playing defense and hammer these assholes which I'm sure Kerry will do.

edited for spelling

[LiberalFighter]

117. Independent sources?

I would ask what those sources are and then go from there.

The only independent sources would be the actual record(s). Not someone elses opinion.

[indigobusiness]

37. Things do seem shaky

at a point that they should be surfing the wave of a convention tsunami. I don't like this. Bush now has a chance to gain ground going into the RNC and that bodes ill. He WILL get a bounce...and then the fight hits the gutter.

[aquart]

67. Cite the fucking poll.

The mood all over the country is that we have to get rid of Bush or go under.

Where are you that you've know what's happening all over the country? Try to stop generalizing. Try to stop becoming hysterical over pundits. The fools who believe them have always believed them, will always believe them. The rest of us are disgusted and go elsewhere for news.

[Malva Zebrina]

102. and the reason is that he is playing belt way politics

we are NOt getting a clear view of our candidate's positions. period.

He KNOWS we will vote against Bush and is playing a game, hoping to capture the votes of disgruntled middle of the road
Republicans or undecided Independants.

As a result, those of us who know where truth lies, are forced to vote for a man who consistently appears to spin as amuch as the fascist we now have in the Oval Office, much to our dismay.

I think it shameful.

I am ashamed of this voting process. It seems nothing but spin, lies, and not a one of them is coming forward with the truth.

If this is the way we must vote, then I say this: there is nothing to look forward to in this country but more lies--on both sides of the aisle. If we accept this politicking as the "norm" then we have become it's victim.
We need to insist upon a more honorable approach than what we are being shackled with as in the next election.

It is the thing to do--flip flop, obfuscate, lie, and spin and avoid'

Pull the wool over the voters eyes and that is perfectly fine and dandy and accepted as the politics a susual.

I find that extremelhy disconcerting.

and we, as the voters are captive to getting rid of the Bush bastard and vote for someone we still have to "guess" about.

It is a shame. There should be no guessing about the iunvasion of Iraq on lies of a stupid man who did not win an election.


There should be NO doubt about it. Yet we have been forced to suffer under this igmnorant bastard and his propaganda machine as if we were a third world country afraid of it'
s dictator.

and Kerry, sad to say, and sad to say I will vote for him, is compliant in it all.

It is just plain a tragedy and a shameful position that we are in today and will be in when we go to the polls.

[buycitgo]

104. that about sums it up, indeed

it's a very sad state of affairs, isn't it?

but that's the way the game is played

and what of his stance on Cuba, Venezuela, and FAITH BASED inititatives, just for starters?

not to say I'm not going to quit working for him, but only cause the thought of four or MORE years of this crew is just unbearable

why doesn't he make a HUGE part of his campaign energy independence?????

he barely mentions that?

just think what that could do for our economy, not to mention our international relations, the biosphere, and our national state of mind

just getting the middle east monkey off our back would work wonders on so many fronts

[Generic Other]

35. Rope a dope?

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"?

It work for Ali.

[dennis4868]

11. Mohamad Ali....

calls that Rope a dope.....

[noahmijo]

12. THAT'S the term that popped into my head actually

[buycitgo]

16. jesus, WAKE UP!!!!

by the time the ropes have been doped, it will have been too late

don't you GET it?

Clinton PROVED that you CANNOT let them paint you into a corner like that

it will be TOO LATE

Kerry is already word-associated as a flipflopper in swing voters' minds, and that is NOT a good thing

he really screwed up by not countering that meme, and is paying for it now

if he keeps this up, I fear for what will happen

he can't let them go after him unrefuted

[dennis4868]

19. AGREE 100%!

Why is it, do you think, that Kerry is not putting the $87 billion dollar issue to rest and explain it and put the ball in Bush's court to answer why he threatened to veto the $87 billion dollar bill?

I just don't get it. Does Kerry and his people not understand the issue? Have they not learned from 1988 that if you do not respond to the repub liesa and smears you will lose...Clinton and his war room never let a smear go unanswered!

[noahmijo]

28. Because this is an administration whose sole platform is to lie

and attack. As soon as Kerry debunks this * will have another lie made up and another and another, and what's dangerous is that since he has no shame and is capable of coming up with lies that are so far fetched Kerry wouldn't have the ammo to debunk them (how do you debunk a statement that says something like "Kerry decided to go out and flip off schoolgirls today after they cut in front of his bus)

The point is on this 87 billion issue you know he has the ammo he could easily back up an argument, and if he debunks it now, the next attack may not be so easily and harshly debunked.

This issue will blow back up in *'s face but if he does it now * will turn the attention away with another attack and another attack. These people just get nastier and nastier everytime they get buffooned, but when it's live * will have nowhere to run and no attack planned.

So you are right I do agree overall I wish Kerry would work like Clinton did, however, Kerry isn't facing a man like Dole he's facing a lying crook who has no shame and will throw $100 million at you to convince you that Kerry wants to tax 50% of what a waitress makes.

[0rganism]

96. Unfortunately, bushco has the resources to pursue multiple attacks

If the attacks were occurring in some sort of FIFO order, where each one was required to be debunked or confirmed before moving on to the next, you'd have a point.

However, bush can just let this one slide by, knowing the media will handle it for him without consequence, and move on to the next "not so easy" attack. If bush pursues this line to its logical conclusion, he ends up with more egg on his face than Kerry, but if he lets it stand and doesn't take it up himself, he can leave it as an apparent festering boil on Kerry's record, fueled by complicit media whores.

Now Kerry's campaign strategists might see this as acceptible non-fatal damage. Maybe it just doesn't matter all that much based on internal issue polls, compared to other things. But it certainly seems reckless to me at this point.

[buycitgo]

50. seriously

I am STUNNED at the number of people here that seem to be living in a bubble of unreality

we are SO frickin far behind in the battle of the surrogates that it astounds me that we're as close as we are

ABB is VERY strong, otherwise we'd be screwed to the wall

They better wise up to this fact, and start playing, uh, hardball in the TV markets, which is where most news consumers get there dose of propaganda

we are sorely lacking in this area

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. Good point!

"Since Bush is all about attacks, everytime Kerry shoots down one attack, * will come up with another and another."

Best to stay out of the mode of constantly responding to these. Kerry is a smart and good campaigner as he's shown through the whole race so far.

[buycitgo]

48. jeZUSS? can you spell this word?

D
U
K
A
K
I
S
?

that was his strategy, exactly

he deigned NOT to answer such charges

Clinton DID answer EVERY ONE as they came out, in the SAME news cycle, and, for the most part, it worked

he WON, so it worked

if Kerry doesn't respond, at least to the most egregious falsehoods, he risks having more BS imprinted into the public consciousness than just flipflopper. how does DO NOTHING sound?

Bush will NEVER stop the lies, so making the point that responding just encourages more lies misses the point, if that's what you meant

that's all they do is lie, but, as I said, the worst of them DEMAND response

[papau]

7. He should have used the Biden reply on MTP this morning on same question

A bit long but solid -

and Biden agrees Kerry was correct that Kerry's worries about the 18 Billion in the bill for Iraq recontruction being deveolped with poor policy and poor management - as shown by the fact only $450 million has been spent on infrastructure and jobs for Iraqis since the Oct 2003 vote -

So he made the correct analysis -

And the question should be why did Bush send Guard and Reserves into Iraq without body vests and armored Humvees.

The above is a 45 second answer - which is long - but I think Kerry should use it.

[jpgray]

8. Biden is a moron

He didn't even mention that Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion if funded, or that Kerry likely cast his vote in protest since the bill would pass anyway. Also, he contradicted his own statements.

[buycitgo]

10. not good enough

I saw that, and Biden did NOT mention the fact that Bush threaten to veto his own bill, as mentioned in header

this is scary for me

they are doing exactly the opposite of what they need to

EDIT

jpgray beat me to point

WHERE are the whipsaw boys the dems can rely upon?

there are TONS of them here that could do a better job on these points than ANYBODY I've seen out there, with one exception:

Rahm Emmanuel

every time I've seen him on TV, which is, of course, not often, he takes NO quarter, tosses their lies back in their faces, and MOST importantly, TURNS their attacks into attacks of his own, reFUSING to go on the defensive

he needs to teach a seminar on this basic tactic to the rest of the democratic party

just play tapes of Mary Matalin overtalking her opponents, refusing to shut up, etc.

that's what they do, and dems ALLOW them to

[dweller]

36. Maybe Biden didn't

b/c it's going to be Kerry's response in a debate to put the matter to rest, and back on *moron's fault by threatening to veto.
Biden is an advisor to Kerry's team, and if that's the plan (as according to noahmijo above) Biden can't use it now.

yeah, i can see that blowing up on the *moron later, and showing Kerry to be the wiser after all.
dp

[NMDemDist2]

42. here you go...the repsonse to the flip flop

"John Kerry’s Vote on Bush’s bloated supplemental was a principled vote to push the Administration to develop a real plan to take the targets off our troops and insist that the wealthy bear some small chare of the sacrifice by giving up part of the tax cut on the most wealthy. The Bush Administration opposed both these reasonable measures and even threatened to veto his own measure when amendments were proposed to expand reservists’ health care benefits and make part of the $87 billion a loan. Meanwhile, Bush sent troops to war improperly equipped, tried to cut combat pay and has instituted a back door draft preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires."


spread it far and wide...


http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002238.html#more

[buycitgo]

43. great! you and the ten other people that read that will be pleased

NOW... why didn't THEY say that on TV, which is where THREE FOURTHS, if not more, of the voters get their news?

sorry about the shouting, but they aren't doing it the way I SEE it

therefore, they're WRONG

see?

[NMDemDist2]

44. nope, they will continue to hammer at bushco and it won't matter eom

[Skip Intro]

14. You know, somewhere along the line...

I become fully trusting of the Kerry campaign. For a while, after it was apparent he'd be our nom, I was vocal sometimes when I thought a Kerry response was lacking, or when I percieved an opportunity missed. But not anymore.

I am convinced that these people are smart, savvy, and in it to win it. I think they know what they are doing, and I trust them.

Having said that - I didn't see the stephie interview, so there may be reason to feel as you do. I know the Kerry peole KNOW they are going to have to address the Iraq votes. Maybe part of a strategy?

[buycitgo]

18. the panel LAUGHED at his non-response, like I said

they pointed out that he'll HAVE to answer this charge, which he can do easily, and fairly succinctly, while, at the same time, TURNING it back on Bush, as has been pointed out above

why he didn't DO that today, just AMAZES me?

the only thing that makes sense is that he thinks he CAN'T go after the president yet, which makes NO sense, cause NOW is the TIME!

look at what they're doing to him, on a PERSONAL level

[dennis4868]

21. It is not going after Bush....

it is defending yourself and letting the truth out on this issue....and please dont refer to Bush as president....yaccck!

[Gin]

25. Kerry got right back at Steph.....and that's the only way to deal with

these paper tigers....get in their faces....and refute what they are spewing... right to "their" face....you go John and John....

I liked when Kerry said he wasn't going to outline an Iraq plan until he is President.

I agree...be vague because if he does..shrub "who has no plan" will use it.

[buycitgo]

40. whoaaaaa! thanks for that

I'm so PISSED about this, and the overconfident responses here, that I didn't realize what I was typing

I always use something like pRes, or the like, or chimp, or dumbass, or scumbo, something more in keeping with his true nature

[Cocoa]

23. no, Kerry answered it well

he said that he knows from his experience in Vietnam that it's important NOT to support a bad war policy.

Fuck the panel.

[rumguy]

24. fuck the political panel

but there is a better way to deal with this issue than what Kerry offered this morning...

[goju]

27. Reasonable people understand it

Biden outlined it well this morning and Kerry definitely needs to repeat it but, I think most people understand where Kerry was coming from.

[merh]

29. Kerry and Edwards doing a great job on Wolfie's show....

I do hate Wolfie. He is lying about the polls. What a moran!!

[SEpatriot]

31. Strike back...on a timetable.

I think they really do need to let this build a little bit more for impact (which they may be doing, letting the * campaign get married to this theme of "flip-flopper") Then, there are a couple of real options here:

1) Take it back to Bush and point out that HE threatened to veto the $87 billion. I CHANGED MY POSITION? BUSH WAS WILLING TO VETO THE $87 BILLION TO SAVE HIS BILLIONAIRE TAX CUTS!

2) And this is very risky and you may have to wait until the debate...look directly into the camera and say: You know, I wanted to support the troops, I wanted to do it in the right way and I wanted to make sure that we didn't bankrupt the treasury unnecessarily. I said before and I'll say it again, if my vote would have changed the outcome I would have voted for it...I wanted to send a message with that second vote and I now realize, that wasn't the best message to send because it can be misunderstood, that was a mistake. Harry Truman had a little plaque on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here." When I'm president, the buck will stop with me and I will not blame it on "intelligence failures" or someone else. I will take responsibility and I hope and pray that I do not make any mistakes which will cost the lives of Americans...but I learned something as a commander in Vietnam...you have to take responsibility. Now I challenge Mr. Bush to be honest with the American people, and admit that he made a mistake in rushing to war, in claiming that Iraq was connected to 911 and not having a plan for winning the peace.

[NightOwwl]

34. Did you see how quickly he tore apart Bush's new slogan

"We're turning the corner" into shreds. Did you watch his speech at all yesterday. Kerry knows what he us doing. He is a fighter, and Rove's tired old tactics won't work. Kerry walks a fine line with the 87 billion dollars because he must make sure that what he says does not undermine the troops. A blatant attack on Bush's handling of the war could demoralize troops and their families. He knows what he is doing. Mary Beth Cahill is also a fighter. Remember the Whoopi Goldberg attack. Read the scathing letter she sent to the Bush campaign. These people will not rollover.

[ItsMyParty]

38. My, Kerry seems to be having a busy and maybe not so good morning

I came here with a post about an hour ago. Bill Schneider on CBS just asked nicely (no crap, no trap)about him speaking about his years in the Senate (the lack of). Kerry immediately changed the subject--would not utter one word but started bringing up Nam. As I said in my post, the campaign could put together an overall theme of how Kerry's years in the Senate were fighting for real people as opposed to Bush's fighting for the elite. Why they refuse to do this when Bush is ready to launch a 64 million ad campaign and speeches tomorrow tearing Kerry to shreds on his record, is just beyond me. People aren't listening to "the pie in the sky future" speeches. They grow old. But they will listen to this crap if Kerry doesn't define himself.

[buycitgo]

41. exACTLY! they CONTINUE to let them define him

and if they don't come up with an answer to his running away from his Senate record, he's going to be in big trouble

look at the above posts about people who are against Bush but buy into the flip flop image

they're going to KILL him on this now, as his record is the very basis for flip flops.....and worse

I just don't get it

and the "secret plan" for Iraq is equally stunning

like it or not, the gasbags are having a field day with that already, and are taking pleasure in making fun of this

remember, these creeps are the opinion shapers who dittoed the blasfaxes from the pug boiler room four years ago, giving us all the lies which molded the public consciousness of Gore into that of a liar

doesn't anybody GET THIS?

jesus

jesus

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. How many days ago did Kerry give his acceptance speech? Based...

...on what I heard and saw, they're not going to "kill" Kerry on anything, much less this issue. Kerry, Edwards, and their entire campaign staff are way too smart to let that happen.

Based on your posts, you give the distinct impression that everyone capable of turning on a television was watching this show. You and I both know that's not true...my guess is that fewer than 1% of all households were tuned in. You forget that most people could care less about watching television on Sundays, much less any other day of the week.

But you just go on with your overblown rant...don't let anything rational stop you from doing what you obviously enjoy.

[buycitgo]

57. you think you know what you're talking about, don't you?

ever heard of the echo chamber?

jesus

I saw three other shows that were making BIG FUN of Kerry today

that's the way it's going to go til he counters it

what makes you the king of all media?

what makes you think ANY news outlets are going to spin things any differently

what planet have you been on for the last, oh, say 12 years, not to go back too far?

have you seen the media EVER give a dem a break in that interregnum?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. Where the HELL have YOU been the last 12 years??...

You must be incredibly naive.

Do you really think that the very SAME captive mainstream news media that has been bashing the Democrats for the last 12 years is going to suddenly allow any kind of response by a Democrat to appear rational?

You talk about the news media bashing Democrats, then you turn around and state with little or no hesitation/hypocrisy whatsoever, that the VERY SAME news media is going to allow Kerry's responses to get out to the public without being attacked/belittled.

Tell me exactly how Kerry is going to accomplish that.

The only sure way for the Kerry/Edwards team to continue to get their message out is by doing it exactly the same way they've been doing it so far.

And I still remember all of those folks on DU that wrote Kerry off early in the pre-nomination process, just like you're trying to do right now.

[buycitgo]

66. why do you have to get personal on every post.?

and as far as what I've said, from your post above:

"then you turn around and state with little or no hesitation/hypocrisy whatsoever, that the VERY SAME news media is going to allow Kerry's responses to get out to the public without being attacked/belittled."

where in the world did I say THAT?

my entire POINT is that the media DON'T allow dems to get their points across

PLEASE show me where I said that, or I'll have to conclude that, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about?

and, why are we arguing over this?

I usually agree with most everything you say

why are you defending the media here, anyway?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. Okay, pay attention and try not to be so easily insulted....

Point #1:

Have you, or have you not, stated numerous times in this thread that you thought Kerry should have responded to an issue for which you now believe he will be boxed-in? You can't deny this, because you made that point repeatedly throughout this thread.

Now, instead of stating that Kerry should have responded, you're now trying to state that the media won't let him talk anyway. And that has been my point all along, and the point of others responding to you in this thread.

Which is it? You simply can't have it both ways.

Point #2:

Where have I defended the media in any of my posts in the thread? If that's what you think I'm doing, then you're sadly mistaken or you've simply misread something in one of my posts in this thread.

Point #3:

Where did I get "personal" with you? If I had wanted to get personal, I would have done so long ago based on the VERY insulting tone of your responses to my comments.

Point #4:

Why are we arguing about this? Because, IMHO, you were taking a shot at Kerry that I felt was undeserved, and I've made a promise to myself that I'm not letting any of that slide on DU until the election is over.

[buycitgo]

79. K........

start with number three, then I'll deal with others

EDIT here-->

you've said the following in several posts, beginning with your very first one, btw:

''overblown rant

hypocrisy

ramming down peoples' throats''

how does anybody RAM anything down anybody's throats on an internet board

why are YOU trying to ram YOUR opinion down MY throat?

huh?

Should I go on?

more in a minute, after I go check some more of YOUR overblown rants

and, while we're at it, why don't you deal with the fact that your analysis of Tonkin vs. IWR is completely WRONG, seeing as how anybody with half a brain KNOWS presidents lie all the time, as I said, especially this one

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[buycitgo]

87. you crack me up!

what, exactly bothers you so much about the post to which you reply?

lots of it is your own words, isn't it?

like I said upthread, projection is a word with which you seem quite familiar

I know it's embarrassing to be hoist on one's own petard, but, gee, this is just the internet

wipe your tears and come back!

I love you, really I do

waaaaahhhhhh!

[buycitgo]

110. oh, and just so you'll know, I didn't tell on you

you attracted the mods' attention all by yourself with that little overreactive post

you know, the ones with all the bad, time-outey words in them?

be nice, please?

[buycitgo]

81. huh?

Point one
''Now, instead of stating that Kerry should have responded, you're now trying to state that the media won't let him talk anyway. And that has been my point all along, and the point of others responding to you in this thread.''

again, what are you talking about?

saying that the media won't let him talk is NOT what I said

nice try, though

they DO mute his message, true, but that doesn't mean he should not even try to respond. MY point is that, so far, he hasn't

again, WHERE do I say the media won't let him talk, you may have inferred that, but I CERTAINLY didn't say it. his obligation is to get his message out there. THAT's my point.

stop putting words in my mouth

[grasswire]

108. What IS your point, man?

I've been reading and reading and reading this thread, and can't yet discern what your real objection is to buycitgo's concern about campaign strategy.

[buycitgo]

109. guess he didn't like having his pronunciamentos from on high

being disagreed with

quite the baby, though, IIMSSM, the way he exited, upon being shown to be quite the hypocrite

can't we just all get along?

forget that, though RUN to

http://www.kpft.org/

and listen to Sibel Edmonds

best interview I've heard yet

great questions, DAMNING answers!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. The important "record" is BUSH's record as incumbent. Which sucks.

That's what reelection campaigns are about. Different from Dukakis. Different from Gore.

[buycitgo]

51. sure, BUT

nobody's talking about Bush now

I don't know if the media want to; maybe it's cause of the convention's proximity, but it's ALL about Kerry right now, and the media are hammering the crap out of him, on myriad fronts, from the IWR to his lack of reference to his senate record, to his closeness to Bush on Iraq (which, of course, is the other way around, but media won't SAY that), to his vote on the 87 billion

that sort of thing

and you KNOW the media are loathe to create a similar echo chamber of Bush negatives

it has NEVER happened; not on a Clintonian scale

remember Abu Ghraib? what happened to THAT?

or Iraq? more Merkins have been killed in July than in June, before the "handover"

they are ACTIVELY working for Bush, just as they did four years ago

never forget that

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

52. I agree with your concerns buycitgo, obviously not nearly to the same

degree, and I don't share the extreme pessimism. I'm mildly pessimistic and moderately optimistic if it's possible to be both things at the same time. Does that make me some kind of flip-flopper?
:o

[buycitgo]

56. flip

FLOP!

you got me there on the pessimism

but I will NEVER EVER forget being at a dem state senators' campaign headquarters, after spending the whole day pounding pavement to get the vote out, then pollwatching.......watching the results come in, then seeing Florida go Gore at about 9PM.......feeling the euphoria of good triumphing over evil (ok, a bit exaggerated there, but justified since, perhaps).......leaving at that point to get some rest, thinking that all was well..........THEN, waking up to a month long twilight zone of grand theft nation, devolving into god knows how you describe the incipient police state we have now

do you SEE how I might be a little over the top pessimoid now?

don't want to be, and wasn't a few days ago, but I DON'T GET this passive attitude they have, unless their internals show a gigantic tide turning in their favor

what they did today with Stephie just did not make sense

sorry

[sandnsea]

55. Tommy Franks

Whose new book is not going to be complimentary on the Administration's planning for peace and "war on the cheap". I suspect that's where the campaign is headed for now. You can't trust these people with your money, you can't trust them to spend wisely, tell the truth about the costs, take advice, etc.

[buycitgo]

59. OK............I've made my point here, and will sum up

I watched Kerry say he doesn't need to respond to the charges regarding his votes on the 87 billion: big mistake

he also will not say why he thinks he can get a better deal from Europe WRT Iraq: understandable, but the media are hammering him on this, comparing him to Nixon in 68, with his secret plan to exit VN

despite the differences between Dukakis and Clinton campaigns, the fact remains that the media are working HARD to distort Kerry's POVs, and ignore the shortcomings in the * campaign, as well as refusing to cover stories like Sibel Edmonds, Abu Ghraib, Plame, *'s OWN flipflop in the 87 billion story....the list is endless

the fact remains that Clinton responded in the same news cycle to the worst of the lies, and stayed on top of things; Kerry has not

you can say I'm overreacting; maybe I am, but at least I admit I could be wrong

I can't believe all you pie in the skyers are so CERTAIN that you're correct

isn't that sort of dogmatic response just the sort of thing that most aptly characterizes our opponents, and what's gotten us buried so far into the muck?

time for them to adapt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Here's my take on it

I think he is banking on the debates being widely watched and is hoping Bush uses it in the debates and he will then clock him with the facts around that vote...Kerry KNOWS this is a big issue and that the Repubs are spending a lot of money advertising that ONE vote....I agreee with you that if it gets too set in the public mind it is a problem, but I also think he WANTS to leave them thinking they have the upper hand with that soundbite so they will USE it...remember that package had LITTLE in the way of actually equipment and accountability.

[buycitgo]

64. I hope you're right, but, thinking along Mencken's line.....

I really fear the public has the attention span of a McDonald's customer, along with his/her critical thinking skills

the meme is planted, just like a McDonald's jingle, and it STAYS there, despite logical refutation

they may not realize it, but it's still THERE, and the longer Kerry goes without trying to dislodge that idea, the more likely it is that, when Kerry tries to dislodge it, the public will think HE's the one trying to put something over on them, rather than the other way around

that's what happened to Gore, with the ACTIVE participation of the media

remember, the Alpha male story was a LIE

Love Canal was based upon the reporters' CHANGING words in the story

Love Story was a LIE, refuted by Eric whatshisname

the problem was, people BELIEVED those things, and when strung together, created an UNCHANGEABLE impression in their minds, one which he was never able to overcome

correspondingly, the media never focused on the MYRIAD lies Bush told, indeed helped to paint the ludicrously false picture of a straight shooter

to this day, they WON'T point out the obvious lies, like the one about Saddam refusing to let inspectors back in, when he MADE FUN of their effectiveness

K? that's it

Seacrest OUT!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. I'm not taking you on about this. I think you are correct that it is

damaging not to address it...and I agree the meme is planted..but if he DEFENDS it now, that tends to justify the attack...if he uses it to put Bush on the defensive AFTER Bush has spent LOADS using it...it can be a strength.

BTW, the only reason I tend to defend it this way is that he has done a good job on every other thing they have tried to pin on him..

[buycitgo]

76. thanks for being civil

I'm at a loss about this

again, I HOPE I'm wrong, but EVERYTHING I've seen/heard/read for the last 12 years tells me that they're going to do the same thing they did to Clinton and Gore

Clinton responded

Gore did NOT

who won?

who lost?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. OK but they already have and that is the only one that stuck

(BTW, I only get a bit uncivil with those that are deliberately obtuse where Kerry is concerned even when his positions are the same or similar enough to their chosen candidate)

I do think your concerns are valid...but Gore ignored ALL of the memes..invented the internet, love canal, love story and every other turd they tossed....Kerry put almost everything they threw at him to bed FAST...Jane Fonda, Swiftboats, faked injuries, the intern story...he DEVOURED them post haste...if he talks about POLICY it falls on deaf ears....if he NAILS Bush on the details in a debate with PROOF...he will DUMBFOUND him....I think he is crafty enough to move for the kill and I believe those undecideds we are pandering to will watch the debates...I think he has an answer and doesn't wish to squander it knowing they will simply move to the next attack.

[buycitgo]

82. disagree on Gore a little

he tried halfheartedly, but fell victim to echochamber

and you missed the MAJOR meme spread against Kerry: the flipflop, which somebody here has supported, in terms of even Bushhaters buying

I wish he'd done something about that one right away, cause it's too late

there are lots of examples of this in the media, regarding voters who buy the flipflop thing

I dunno what to think now

I want to be positive, but LOOK at what these criminally insane kleptocrats have gotten away with!


and it's ALL because the media reFUSE to do their jobs!

[0rganism]

95. I agree -- I think it's a gambit, bait for the debates, but it's risky

The Kerry campaign is letting the meme build up, even encouraging it slightly. There's no other way the "don't need to respond to that charge" comment can be interpreted. However, there's a serious risk inherent in this strategy.

What if bush doesn't attack this position in the debates? What if the bush campaign lets it slide in favor of other attacks? It wouldn't take a genius to see that taking the bait sets bush up for a sucker punch. However, the lapdog press will reinforce the idea free of charge and free of consequence. Then, Kerry has to use the last few weeks of the campaign attempting to disrupt a meme that's been socially ingrained for months without contest.

As any chess player knows, gambits are fine, as long as a "declined" line doesn't leave your ass hanging in the breeze come the endgame.

[Tactical Progressive]

98. I agree with you

When you see somebody getting the crap beat out of them, it's not because they're letting themselves get beat up until it just becomes all too much. That's the movies. Billy Jack, 'slow to anger'. The good guys just take it and take it until the time is right.

Not in the real world. If you're getting the crap kicked out of you in the real world and you're not fighting back, it's because you aren't able to.

This is troubling, not least of all because such childish politicing is so easily refuted and even turned back on the attackers, yet they seem as helpless as Gore was in fighting it.

[buycitgo]

100. sigh.....now you've got me putting on my colander

Skull and Bones?

[Swamp Rat]

62. What show was this, what station, what time?

Who's watching TV today anyway? I don't think it is wise for Kerry and his crew to waste time trying to answer/defend against all the TV pundits. That would play right into the hands of the Bush&Co/media money machine. This is what Bush&Co WANTS him to do. It's better to just laugh at them and refer to his website for the answers. Let them waste their money on negative ads. Everyone I know, including repubs, is SICK of Bush&Co's negative attack ads.

Look, try to have a positive outlook and don't worry about the TV pundits. Their time is neigh as Americans are waking up to what they really are - whores. My cousin works at CNN in Atlanta in the international division. He says most of the staff HATE Woodruff, Blitzer, Zahn, and especially Novak. They are NOT taken seriously... nor should we. Let's enjoy a quiet Sunday after such a wonderful week!

[buycitgo]

65. thanks for BOFA!

think I'll take you up on that

again, point is that it's an echo chamber, one which builds on moments like this

the fact that it's one show...This Week, BTW.....only means that it's a tile in the mosaic of media ganging up on the dems

I saw other shows today, and the panels all were talking about the 87 million problem, and how he won't talk about his senate record

this is what the PUGS are talking about?

you need to see the connection here

it's what they DO, and have been doing

again, I hope I'm wrong, but, from what I've seen in past elections (AND during the THOTP years, culminating in the impeachment fiasco), and just today, I wonder

[Swamp Rat]

68. OK. Sorry to ask, but what does "BOFA" and "THOTP" mean?

I think you are correct to pay attention to the strategy of Bush&Co/media, but it's probably better not to respond by taking a defensive position. That would play right into their trap they paid millions to set up. I think Kerry should, if asked by a pundit, just laugh and say "look at my website for that answer." This will piss them off to no end and they will continue to waste time and money on the very same questions over and over - this is good. This keeps Bush&Co busy with a just a few topics that Kerry's strategists can prepare for quite easily. Kerry then can make a singular statement in the debates to debunk all of it.

A better tactic would be to let other folks, like on Air America, the Daily Show, etc. just make fun of these assholes everyday. When someone in public mentions CNN, FOX, NBC, etc. I just laugh and say, "Ha ha! I don't believe those clowns anymore... do you?" This strategy is simple and it costs nothing.

[buycitgo]

73. breath of fresh air/the hunting of the president

partially agree on tactics, but they can't ignore these bigger points

I'm telling you, the media is going to go AFTER him on the ones I mentioned.....they already are

see if I'm wrong over the next few days: this is going to be their mantra

if I'm wrong, GOOD

but I don't think so, based on just their immediate response

AFA your echo chamber, it doesn't exist outside of AAR

that's exactly why Bush gets away with everthing

when something bad happens for him, the story DIES quickly, except for Aub Ghraib. but, what happened to THAT one, even in the face of the child sodomy that WE know about, and the MAJOR media knows about, but REFUSES to report?

that's my major point in this: main media is SO beholden to the pugs that dems have to be STRIDENT in making their points; BUT, when they do they get marginalized, as Dean and Gore have

if we make our points strongly, they say we're NUTS! ANGRY!

[Swamp Rat]

88. Thanks for spelling things out for me... What's 'AFA'?

Sorry, but I don't know a lot of this shorthand... and I'm making you type more than you have to. Is there a site that translates this shorthand? I remember reading about 2 years ago on DU someone made a lexicon of these words/acronyms.

I agree with your points. I'm not disregarding them but I'm not sure if the media is going to have the same impact as before, especially after so much dissent against the media. If Moore could just stop enjoying his success for a minute to start his next documentary on the media...

As for being called "nuts" or "angry" for telling the truth, I don't care. People were saying I'm nuts 3 years ago when I called Bush a criminal (Harken, etc.) and un-patriotic after 9/11... now they are SILENT. The right wingers at the local cafe are AFRAID of me and keep quiet when sitting next to me. I readily admit to "hating Bush" and being totally fucking pissed off. After 3 1/2 years of training at DU (mostly lurking and reading until a couple months ago), I am armed with a lot of facts. I am not exaggerating when I say that right wingers who know me well and have argued politics with me for the last couple of years are literally afraid of me now.... thanks to DU and all the brilliant posts by DUers.

So, my personal strategy has been to criticize the media wherever I go in public, and also to remind people to vote. I do not necessarily promote Kerry as I prefer to bash Bush and leave the voting up to the listener. The sweetest words I'm hearing from average folks are, "I can't vote for Bush this time, but who do I vote for?" If they ask this, then I'll suggest Kerry or the Libertarian candidate. If the word Nader comes up I just say that I voted for him before but I cannot now (I try to imitate the exact language they used when saying this about Bush) - ever since I found out that he's taking money from Bush's supporters.

[buycitgo]

89. swamp rat...........good for YOU, man!

AFA just means as far as

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

AFA the rest of your post, that's most excellent

glad you're able to make your points in public

NOW, since you're in a swing state, maybe, are you doing anything to get out the vote?

if not, please check in with your local dem organization (parish?)

and now, I have a presenet for you, from New Orleans

ever seen this place?



glassLight gallery
728 St Louis Street

know where that is?

check this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1462598#1463196

[Swamp Rat]

94. Oh yes, I know that place. It's in the heart of the Quarter, about 10

blocks from my mom's house... look in that thread you posted because I'm the guy talking to you. I changed my avatar after my 1000th post (it was Louis Armstrong), so maybe that confused you.

As for doing something to help out our cause: I have performed for free at Cafe Brazil (and other clubs) a few times to promote peace, protested in public (when it was very unpopular here - still is - and had death threats and bottles thrown at me), I write and call my Congressfolks regularly (if you've noticed, Landrieu and Breaux are moving back to the left), I argue with any right winger who dares challenge me in public, etc. The plan I have for the election is, if my car is running, to go to the projects and give elderly folks a free ride to the polls.

Everyday I am in public, I remind folks to vote and try to engage them in political conversation. If I run into a Bush-Bot that acts like a O'Leilly/Limpballs clone, I just shout, "don't vote for Bush! He's an alien lizard!"

[Gloria]

114. Nobody watches...but you'll see these interviews in print tomorrow

AND on RW talk radio. Actually, you won't see the interviews in print...you'll see "reports" that will pick out the parts where Kerry "evaded" or "avoided" or whatever..........

[mbee]

71. Kerry's Communication Director is Stephanie Cutter and I would

email her and give her this feedback. Sometimes I think all of us out here can help them just by telling them how something looks out here and how we think they can improve the situation.

[buycitgo]

74. somebody here posted that they've answered on the blog

that's not enough

they know about it, but are dealing with it incorrectly

they aren't going to listen to tactical advice from the likes of us

[kaitykaity]

75. George Will and Mary Matalin were grasping at straws.

These are paid political hacks who are stuck on a
sinking ship and they know it.

[buycitgo]

77. total agreement

BUT, they're the ones whose voices get heard, over and over and over

the average news consumer gets THEIR POV to a very unbalance degree, don't you think?

Brazille was useless today, and Fareed didn't say much

you had two crazed ideolgues versus a hamstrung nincompoop, an actual journalist, and a former political hack trying to protect his gigantic salary

add it up and it doesn't balance out very well

[berry]

90. My reaction has been like yours, buycitgo.

I missed Kerry's interview on ABC but watched Biden give an unsatisfactory one to Russert. So they're all piling on, asking this same question (with the same mindless assumptions). I couldn't believe how lame Biden sounded--all the more frustrating when there are very good reasons for Kerry's vote, and not all that hard to explain.

But one thought did occur to me as I read this thread. I totally agree that NO ONE, at least no thinking person, could possibly be so naive as to believe that Presidents don't lie (to say nothing of the pResident). So Kerry's explanation of the earlier vote, to give war powers to *Bush, is a little lame too.

I think Kerry needs to explain his thinking--to people who question either vote (and that includes a lot of people!). I don't think the anti-war people would even think of voting for *Bush, but they would like to know, I think, what his reasoning was/is. They desperately want to trust his judgement, but I think the reason a lot of them aren't yet enthusiastic is related to Kerry's silence on this, of all issues.

Maybe he and his campaign DO know what they're doing, but this refusal to engage on questions that they can CERTAINLY convince people about seems bizarre to me, too. I do NOT understand the silence about his overall Senate record, either. It's a GOOD record.

But I'm not wise in the ways of campaigning, especially not since the rules were rewritten by the GOP. All I can go by is my own gut feeling. And if I (who was always ABB anyway) am made uneasy by a seeming reluctance to address certain issues, I tend to think it may be a problem for others as well. And that does worry me.

Ah well. I really had nothing to add, except my agreement with your posts. I was surprised at the vehemence of those who differed. We ARE all in the same boat.

[buycitgo]

91. amen, and you've put it better than I

they really must have some undivinable campaign strategy, based on knowledge unavailable to the hoi polloi

BUT, I still worry that he's being defined as we speak, and, as masters of the Bernays/Goebbels school of psyop/PR, they're doing all they can, as quickly as they can to imprint these impressions on the public consciousness, if not SUBconscious

you know who Bernays was related to, yes?

[berry]

97. Well, I didn't. But I've spent the last hour reading articles on Bernays.

So I guess the obvious answer is Freud. But is there some other relative you are referring to?

This subject of PR/propaganda is fascinating. Thanks for sending me off on that reading spurt. I now have a list of books I'm going to have to read too.

In some ways, Bernays sounds a lot like Leo Strauss in the way he viewed manipulation of public opinion in a "democracy." I wonder if they knew each other...

[buycitgo]

99. no. that's it. good enough, though, yes?

harnessing the subconscious, and all that

repeat repeat repeat, then repeat some more

also, if you haven't read it, try Jacques Ellul's ''Propaganda''

seems like something Rove would have memorized, as it reads like a blueprint for all the crap they've been pulling

I'd love to know how closely he's studied the nazi era, cause so much of what they're doing looks like they just changed the names of the targets AND target audience; streamlined things for our time and place, using all the advantages of seventy years' worth of new technology and psyop research

[berry]

113. Yes indeed--the connection is fascinating.

One article I read said that Bernays was in part responsible for the great impact Freud made--he flacked him a lot, pushed for publication of his books, etc. But also that there was a great difference between the two, because Freud was trying to help people lift repressed memories into consciousness, while Bernays was trying to influence people without their being conscious of it.

You probably know this, but maybe some others will be interested in this little tidbit about Bernays (from a review of Larry Tye's book, "The Father of Spin"). It may be that Rove studied the Nazis, but he could just go to the source, since the Nazis apparently learned a lot from Bernays. Sounds like Bernays' pattern in Guatemala has been used by the U.S. over and over ever since--in Cuba, and beyond. Rove has plenty of models.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html
<<In his memoirs, Bernays wrote that he was "shocked" to discover that Goebbels
kept copies of Bernays' writings in his own personal library, and that his
theories were therefore helping to "engineer" the rise of the Third Reich.
Bernays liked to cultivate an image as a supporter of feminism and other
liberating ideas, but his work on behalf of the United Fruit Company had
consequences just as evil and terrifying as if he'd worked directly for
the Nazis. The Father of Spin sheds new and important light on the extent
to which the Bernays' propaganda campaign for the United Fruit Company
(today's United Brands) led directly to the CIA's overthrow of the elected
government of Guatemala.

The term "banana republic" actually originated in reference to United
Fruit's domination of corrupt governments in Guatemala and other Central
American countries. The company brutally exploited virtual slave labor in
order to produce cheap bananas for the lucrative U.S. market. When a
mildly reformist Guatemala government attempted to reign in the company's
power, Bernays whipped up media and political sentiment against it in the
commie-crazed 1950s.

"Articles began appearing in the New York Times, the New York Herald
Tribune, the Atlantic Monthly, Time, Newsweek, the New Leader, and other
publications all discussing the growing influence of Guatemala's
Communists," Tye writes. "The fact that liberal journals like the Nation
were also coming around was especially satisfying to Bernays, who believed
that winning the liberals over was essential. . . . At the same time,
plans were under way to mail to American Legion posts and auxiliaries
300,000 copies of a brochure entitled 'Communism in Guatemala--22 Facts.'"
His efforts led directly to a brutal military coup. Tye writes that
Bernays "remained a key source of information for the press, especially
the liberal press, right through the takeover. In fact, as the invasion
was commencing on June 18, his personal papers indicate he was giving the
'first news anyone received on the situation' to the Associate Press,
United Press, the International News Service, and the New York Times, with
contacts intensifying over the next several days."

The result, tragically, has meant decades of tyranny under a Guatemalan
government whose brutality rivaled the Nazis as it condemned hundreds of
thousands of people (mostly members of the country's impoverished Maya
Indian majority) to dislocation, torture and death.

Bernays relished and apparently never regretted his work for United Fruit,
for which he was reportedly paid $100,000 a year, a huge fee in the early
1950s. Tye writes that Bernays' papers "make clear how the United States
viewed its Latin neighbors as ripe for economic exploitation and political
manipulation--and how the propaganda war Bernays waged in Guatemala set
the pattern for future U.S.-led campaigns in Cuba and, much later,
Vietnam.">>

Oh, and I've added Ellul to my reading list! Thanks.

[buycitgo]

115. thanks for Guatemala info; didn't now about that

I did know about Bernays always playing down Geobbels' regard for him/use of his tactics

what better use to put it than take the principles of marketing to their logical extension?

makes all the sense in the world

wouldn't you love to get Roebbels hooked up to a lie detector, or, say take him over to Abu Ghraib, and get him to tell us just HOW much he relies on what he's learned from those two?

[buycitgo]

101. man.........they're talking about this very subject on some

radio station I just got

can't figure out what it is, yet, but it's linked from here

http://www.geocities.com/nomad559/AirAmerica.html

site is all messed up, so I can't figure out which one it is, and my media player won't show the URL

pretty fascinating talk, accusing US of being terrorist state for a long time, citing lack of media reporting on it

Cuba is the topic for now, going back to US program against Castro, starting with JFK

"State Propaganda apparatus:"

does not come directly from state, like USSR

our system works more effectively; privatized, with media cooperation

the more articulate elements control intellectual apparatus, similar to Komissar class, which forces intellectual orthodoxy, in an unconscious manner. they THINK they're being independent (amen to THAT), but are living in a dreamworld

Interviewer: what can people do?

Answer: use common sense....be critical of media, just as you would be of any other institution. why be less critical of OUR media than we were of Pravda or the Nazis?

[kaitykaity]

116. Hey, Brazille got the last word, and that's no small feat

in that company.

I think you misunderestimate voters as a group. They
vote based on their own personal pain. In 2000, life was
good and so trash-spewers like Matalin and Will could
have their way and people sort of bought in.

Now? I'm sorry, but those attacks don't do anything
to solve people's problems, and THAT's the only thing
that matters.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[buycitgo]

107. never mind

all gone

[buycitgo]

111. at the risk of beating a dead horse, I repeat this, from the header

But when it was presented to Bush that the $20 billion should be taken off the huge taxcut for his wealthy friends, Bush said he would veto the entire bill if that came to his desk. He was the person willing to keep the funds from the troops, not Kerry. Kerry would not have kept the funds from the troops if his vote was decisive. His vote was a simple vote on principle. His principles were stronger than Bush's but it cannot be explained in one simple sentence to counter the charges by the Bush regime.

I think this is REALLY important, if the pugs go after him as hard as they have been so far. Bush still mentions it in every speech, and they're still running that phony ad about his not supporting the troops

why don't dems go on the OFFENSIVE with this, saying just what Kentuck says above, that Bush is MUCH more interested in keeping his rich friends RICH, or, actually making them RICHER, than giving the troops the support they need.

[buycitgo]

112. and WTF was Kerry THINKING when he refused to come up

with such a simple, concise, easily comprehensive response to the * slander?

what am I missing here?

[FDRrocks]

118. Nope n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

119. oh god the sky is falling...run!!!!!!!! the sky is falling...fuck me

WTF is wrong with you????