Will it ever end?

[frogmarch]

I'm referring to the GD thread topic, "Our senators deserve this."

Ever since Kerry began speaking out strongly this week, I've noticed less harsh criticism of the senators who voted in favor of the IWR, but there are still those DUers who feel such criticism is warranted.

How can those of us who feel moved to speak in the senators' defense do so effectively? What facts do we need to present?

[jillan]

1. This is not just DU

I was watching KO tonite. His first story was on bsh's speech.
He was irate like everyone else. He mentioned that bsh attacked Kerry, and then read excerpts from Kerry's response. He then went on to Kennedy's response and showed it on tv while he read it, then did the same with Reid's response. And if that wasn't enough, whoever he was talking with (Milbank? ) they were discussing how Kerry comes up with a new talking point almost everyday - and then said BUT NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO HIM ANYMORE.

I watch Olbermann everyday, and think he is the only decent newsman out there. But I could not believe what I was hearing.

What is it? I just don't understand.

As far as the few that are still so negative about the IWR - let them. I was really amazed at all of the great comments coming out this weekend. The few negative people are clueless. They don't get it, these senators were lied to. They did not get the same intellegence as the WH. And we can't cut and run. We went into Iraq and trashed it. We owe it to the citizens of Iraq to return their country to some sort of normalcy before we leave.

[_dynamicdems]

2. I had exactly the same reaction you did watching this show.

It was weird the way KO only read a few words of Kerry's and then went on about Kennedy's response. And I was really upset by the tone with which they said that Kerry makes sound bites every day but nobody's paying attention. It was sarcastic. However, and this is what really makes me wonder what is going on, they showed a clip of John Kerry walking and talking to people (probably on Capital Hill) and he looked DAMN GOOD.

Okay, maybe I am imagining things here, but it almost seemed they are forbidden (by network execs?) to give good press to John Kerry. However, by showing Shrubby video looking like a demented despot and then showing the contrasting video image of John Kerry looking very presidential, they made a covert statement.

And it's not only television news that has this "blackout" in place. There was an article about John Kerry's legislation in today's paper (not sure, but I think it was the Boston Herald) and the article didn't even mention that it was Kerry's Amendment until the very end. And then, all they did was include a short quote from Kerry that he "said about his amendment." I had to read it twice to catch the "his amendment." Most people reading the article would never read far enough or throughly enough to KNOW it was KERRY'S AMENDMENT!

This is absolutely insane. Like the Twilight Zone. OJ gets better press. I want to start a petition to send to all national media blasting them on a conspiracy against Senator Kerry, but I'm afraid everyone will just laugh it off.


:rant: :grr:

[kerrygoddess]

3. I'm thinking the Noise Machine is tightening up.

Lord knows the liberal friggin blogosphere is mum on JK lately.

[_dynamicdems]

4. But why?

This is bizarre. What is going on and who is behind it? KO looked nervous mentioning John Kerry's name tonight (he was looking at the p aper he was reading from as if it was going to bite him) and Tweetie nearly choked (and looked like he was going to choke Howard Dean) when Howard Dean mentioned Kerry's speech on Iraq.

They are tearing * to shreds. Why is Kerry on ignore? Did he kill someone I don't about?

[karynnj]

6. Dynamicdem, I feel the same way

I really don't understand this at all. It feels so bizarre to watch the Senate, in real time, and see Kerry dilagently, courteously, and intelligently present and push legislation then repeatedly see his name taken off it - so it can pass. We all read Kerry's press releases, he is incredible - but almost none of it makes the newspapers.

Maybe the media, having at mimimum covered for Bush prior to the election (I also think they covered Kerry in the worst light possible), is afraid that if sane, decent Kerry is shown for who he is, they will be blamed. I'm afraid that their fall back may be "but Kerry was worse."

What bothers me is that they are lying about Kerry while denying him a chance to speak for himself or correct the record. I am furious that we know for a fact that Matthews and Imus got emails from us with links to Kerry's web site, his Senate web site, or the official Senate record - clearly valid sources - to dispute their comments on Kerry's current view of the IWR vote and the war itself. (The really strange thing is that on the war, they are not on one page - you have people claiming that he is still for more troops and aligned with Bush and occasional references that he wants to withdraw now - whichever makes him look worse.)

My husband actually told me that he heard Begala and said he made sense on the IWR - I explained that he was being very disengenuous and he was lying about Kerry's current positions. I felt VERY strange - no, I am not in a Kerry cult - my sources are his words on the Senate floor and at Georgetown University. I did convince him, but he thought he was just ill informed and totally didn't buy that the Clintons would have any reason to try to distort Kerry's record.

That I would have agreed with him two years ago is scary. It leads me to what I woud have ignored as tin foil hat conspiracy theory. Yet I know that my views are based on what I see in the Senate - in public record. Kerry is speaking out on nearly every pertinent issue in committee or on the floor of the Senate - yet even the liberal press covers little and instead says only Edwards is talking poverty etc.

I may have missed this in the past - I assume Carter was ignored once the Reagan years began. It may be only be their desire to cover an exciting Clinton vs McCain battle and to move on from 2004, but it seems like they are not covering what's really happening.

Could it be Kerry knows too much about the last 4 decades and many have a vested interest in not letting him in power. Nothing mysterious just that - for the major papers - they failed to step up to print the truth so many times when Kerry did. They are now using the Rove techniques they supposedly deplore - the IWR as they portray it (like Zakariah) paints Kerry as a slick politician who acted without principle - whe he did more then anyone for decades.

[_dynamicdems]

19. It seems surreal to watch C-Span and to follow

Senator Kerry's activities and then to sit back and listen to the...silence. He's a national political figure. He ran for President. He is a Senator.

You may be right about those with a vested interest. That is why I trust John Kerry more than ever. And this makes sense especially when you look back at the election last year. I'm going out on a limb here: John Kerry was never supposed to be the nominee. Something went wrong in Poly Land. He came out our Iowa and NH with a momentum of popular interest, but he was not the candidate the Party wanted. They went along with his candidacy only because they didn't have much choice.

In the political arena, John Kerry has a severe handicap: he's honest. That is a big problem for some of the power brokers in Washington. An honest man is not something they know how to deal with because he's a wild card that cannot be controlled. And Washington is all about control and power.

That line that Senator Kerry quotes all the time about "Speaking Truth to Power" takes on new meaning when you think about those in power who want anything but truth. And they are not just in the Republican Party.

[BlueIris]

7. Thanks for mentioning the blogs. I thought I was totally imagining it.

Still can't get over the idea that my favorite blogger dumped him. Unreal world.

[whometense]

9. That was Craig Crawford

who made that snarky comment about Kerry.

He's one of the smartasses of the MSM who just can't stand to give Kerry credit for anything. He reminds me of those spitball-firing jackasses who sit in the last row in class.

[_dynamicdems]

16. You describe him perfectly. Jackass.

Of course, I like it when his spitballs are directed at the bad guys.

[sandnsea]

12. I just read something

I can't remember who said it, maybe Hitchens but that's not the point. Said that John Kerry shouldn't ever be President and that there were alot of Democrats who thought the same thing privately. I'm thinking that there's a core of hawkish corporate Democrats who have influence in Washington and nowhere else. Otherwise, I can't figure out where these kinds of comments are coming from. Most of the blogosphere has said he'd make a great President, just an awful candidate. This awful President stuff is the reverse of that. I think Mr. BLM needs to take that Washington job so that she can infiltrate and figure out what in the world is going on up there!! :)

[karynnj]

14. I wouldn't be surprised and it may be why I like only Kerry for Pres now

After reading about BCCI and his other investigations, it seemed exciting that he by his own strengths had won the nomination after doing things that would have caused another man to be out of office years ago. He went against the money men and the corupt people in his own party.

The thing that is infuriating is that people have always said they want someone who is independent and not corrupt - they worship that in John McCain (where it really isn't totally true) - yet they couldn't see it in Kerry.

I can't see what else they would fear - I know Nixon caled him a young demogogue - but coudn't find anything bad on him. After the election I read the lovely comments by Teresa that used to be on your LUTD blog comparing the egosystem around a tropical (?) tree to everyone being interconnected - There is no way someone who wrote that could have married a man who was anything but good. (I wish more people had seen that side of Teresa.)

[_dynamicdems]

20. Perhaps he's making waves we can't see.

This crap frightens me. It truly does. At least * and his party of wingnuts are easy to spot. You know which direction the fire is coming from. But this other business...who can you trust? Bad vibes. Very bad vibes.

[whometense]

53. Wow. It's not just me then.

I haven't been posting much because I feel mostly sickened by the democrats maneuvering and cynically positioning themselves. They all (excepting the senators who apparently have no non-presidential aspirations like Boxer, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, etc.) refuse to acknowledge Kerry as much as the rethugs do.

I don't know who to trust - well, I do trust those I mentioned above, who all seem to be pretty straight shooters. I can tell you who I don't trust, though I'm trying hard to live by the "if you can't say anything nice" rule. It gets harder and harder though.

I will say that it does seem like the worse things are for the evildoers in power, the more the uglier side of the dems is exposed. For Kerry lovers none of this is new - we could sense it last year. But it is more evident now that no one wants to give him credit for anything lest they raise him up and thereby lower their own prospects. It's frankly nauseating. I see Kerry out there speaking well of all of them. What a viper's nest politics is.

[jenndar]

54. This makes me sad, too

because you can so easily make an argument for why Kerry is one of the best and most hardworking members of the US Senate right now, and everyone's just projecting presidential aspirations all over him.

[ray of light]

5. This might help you.

Here is a link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html

And here's the money quote:

"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

According to the President's own words, voting for the Resolution was not voting for war. The President voted for war in March 2003. He made the big decision. He made the wrong decision, after being told by the weapons inspectors that Saddam was beginning to comply, and no weapons were being discovered.

And even the D.U. Research Forum has John Kerry's speech posted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x574

[karynnj]

8. It's interesting re-reading Kerry's speech

in conjunction with both the wonderful compilation of Bush quotes and knowledge of what happened. Bush is an absolute liar and fraud. Kerry was so prescient in some ways, one comment though is sad in being so wrong, he clearly thought the American people and the press would push back if Bush invaded for reasons other than what he was publicly saying to congress and the world.

I had forgotten (or never knew) that the original Bush document actually did have hidden in it their real reason (PNAC) for wanting to attack and the Senate specifically removed it. It's interesting that this is now their OFFICAL reason for being there. Kerry clearly thought the Senate had pushed the Bush administration to a more reasonable position -

from Kerry speech

" want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

------------------------------------------------------------

[whometense]

10. I agree-

I'm beyond frustrated by the way Kerry is treated by both the media and by the "liberal" blogosphere.

There was one very good thing to come out of Countdown last night, and that was the segment Keith did with Robert Sales (UPI) on whether in fact the senate got the same intelligence that the White House had.

For anyone who missed it, the answer was a resounding NO!!!.

The transcript isn't up yet, but it was an excellent segment.

As for the way they treat Kerry, I just don't know. Honest to god, it reminds me of junior high. He's too serious, he's too smart, he's too good looking, and he's too correct, and they just can't stand it.

[ray of light]

11. Hmmm...

Maybe we can help Kerry in little ways.

Sure..we don't have our own media or newspaper but that doesn't mean we can't create a local paper. It can be a one page weekly or monthly and you can mail it to your community (free of charge of course!)

And it doesn't just have to be pro-kerry. It can be informative of all the Dems, Repubs, and the complicit Media.

See...here's my thinking...there are so many people not online. Like the elderly or people who just have no time.

So a one page dossier can be delivered to peoples' mailbox or can be posted on Laundromats or other places where they have bulletin boards.

Yes, it may cost some money, but it's pure grassroots and may help you find local supporters to get the vote out when it truly counts the most.

[sandnsea]

13. Paper's cheap

I've thought that's what we need to do for several years.

[_dynamicdems]

21. Yes, that part was great!

They ripped * a new one, basically. That did my heart so much good.

It certainly is like Jr. High. The press has always attacked John Kerry for stupid things that have no bearing on the issues, any issues. Why have they made so many dumb comments about mirrors, for example? Why did they start calling him "live shot?" That was so bogus it still makes my blood boil. In many ways, I suspect, public speaking did not come all that easy to John Kerry. It might sound odd, but it is likely that our Senator Kerry was a bit more introverted in those days than his public life would attest to.

There is a difference in speaking out because you like the limelight and speaking out because you feel you have to. Senator Kerry takes the stage (and the hits) because he wants to see wrongs righted. Period. No self-aggrandizing. If anything, he's the most modest politician I've ever seen. It doesn't come easy to him to say "I did this, I said that." Nope. But to an extent, he has to do this to get his message out. Notice how he always tries to include the "we" and "us" in everything he says.

Maybe it is more than jealousy. Maybe part of it is guilt. You see someone this honest and altruistic and it makes you uncomfortable. Let me put it this way: would any of you have wanted to be John Bolton during the committee hearings when he was questioned by John Kerry?

[rockymountaindem]

15. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When your worldview is so narrow, few people meet the threshold of acceptability. That problem afflicts both left and right.

[frogmarch]

17. Great posts!

Thanks for your very informative responses! I learned a lot from them. You gave me even more valuable information than I'd expected to get when I started this thread. And from you all, I expected a lot. You're a super bright, savvy group.

I've felt disgusted with Keith on a few occasions for occasionally making what I thought were offhand, snide remarks against one Democrat or another, but I still agree he's the best we have in the MSM. He is marvelous at taking on the Bush machine over things like terror alerts and so on, so at least he's on our side in that regard. I missed most of his show last night, so I didn't see the "Kerry" part.

Even though Senator Kerry is receiving only passing mention in the MSM now, it's better than nothing, and as the Snowball of Truth (sorry, but that's the best I can do till I've had my coffee, lol) gathers momentum and grows ever larger, I have an idea we'll be hearing more and more in the news from John Kerry and about him.

[Mass]

18. This definitively reminds me of Nov 03

What we are talking here is "Inside the Beltway" talks.

But it is also clear that, whenever Kerry is confronted to real people, they pay attention to him. This is why it is so important that he continues to communicate directly and let people know what he does even more directly that he does at this point.

He has an email list of 5 millions people. He still can get half a million signatures for a petition in two weeks. There is nobody else in the country that can (except may be for Conyers).

Kerry is in position to show the Washington media and their blog allies (kos is nothing else than a Beltway insider, even if he is located in CA) that you can invent another type of communication with people: wideos, podcast, ... are the way to do it.

In the real world, there are not a lot of people who listen to the Sunday Talk Shows or cable news. Now is the time to show these people they are "obsolete".

May be we should email to the Kerry team that they need to make these news available directly to people. Forget classic communication ways.

In addition, KO is wrong. People in DC pay attention to what Kerry says. The best proof is that they use it in their attacks. Also, whenever Kerry makes a statement, he is always quoted in the AP and Reuters releases. So, it looks more like spin from Milbank, who wrote an editorial on the subject (DLC spin in fact) than truth.

[_dynamicdems]

22. I'd like to see an INDEPENDENT media source rise up.

Let's say a Robert Redford or Richard Branson sponsored news channel. Cutting edge TRUTH! That would make my day! And they would make a fortune in doing it because so many people are completely disgusted with the media. People want real news that is not filtered by special interests, any interests. Not liberal media: truth media. Complete truth. Report the facts, just the facts. No spin. No analysis. No commentary. No Bullshit!

[ray of light]

23. Sadly, there is nothing on tv.

There is http://www.indymedia.org/ online though.

[Mass]

24. I will not change anything. We have AAR. They ignore Kerry more

than others. And during the campaign, NOW was complaining about Kerry as much as anybody else.

Kerry has never been a media darling and probably never will. But there are other ways to communicate these days. You can do it yourself. This is what he has to do.

Talking about media though, I saw "Good Night, Good Luck" yesterday. I left the theater with a ball in my stomach. Great movie, but the sad thing is that 50 years later, the media have not changed

[ray of light]

25. Randi Rhodes seems to be very supportive of Kerry.

[Mass]

26. That is good news. I dont listen to her that much.

I was happy last week to see Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defend THK against a stupid accusation from a lefty that she was giving a lot of money to the GOP.

[ray of light]

27. I enjoy Randi most of all!

Then I love the Stephanie Miller show but can not get it in my area any longer.

[jenndar]

31. Do you know why I think that is?

She's a big advocate of getting your news from primary sources (like C-SPAN.) I bet she watches the Senate proceedings and is as impressed as we are.

[whometense]

32. The other thing about Randi

that's really important is that she's a veteran. That sets her apart from the other liberal talk show hosts.

[jenndar]

42. I didn't know that!

That's so cool!

[ray of light]

37. And she usually has top-knotch research too.

[_dynamicdems]

28. Air America Radio is not unbiased.

I'm talking NEWS not talk. Hard core news. Senator Kerry would be reported on what he says not on what anyone thinks about him. The same would go for Senator Santorum. Let the facts speak. That is NEWS. We have no news anymore. It is all spun from either the left or the right or from the core of special interests. That is not news.

[YvonneCa]

33. IWT News...

...coming soon. Check their website.

http://www.iwtnews.com/invite

:patriot:

[ray of light]

38. Hey...I was looking for that link. Glad you found it!

[wisteria]

29. I have noticed this "black out" for about a month now.

It's seems like they (media,anti-kerry blogs,newspapers,reporters) have decided to ignore him in the hope that he will just fade away and the population will move on and notice the latest media darling or important story. It wasn't working bashing him, it just gained him some further support, so they are trying this new tactic. It is obvious that the some Washington insiders are behind this, probably those supporting other candidates in 2008 and others with a vested interest in not having Kerry ever consider a run again.

Newsweek is right at the top of the list. MSN online, followed by ABC and even recently and unfortunately, again CNN.Even the right wing radio shows and TV have decided it is better to ignore him. I'm not imagining this. I have been following it, ever since I picked up on a comment, where I can't recall, that said that Kerry was constantly releasing appearance and speech info to the various media sources and they had decided to collectively ignore him. That is why the speech at Georgetown University didn't make the news. Notice Feingold got more coverage with his comment about withdraw than Kerry did with his apology and plan.Also, notice MSM on line, they have taken every effort to avoid mentioning Kerry when referring to the President's speech yesterday even though Kerry was prominently mentioned. This is noting new for them though, I notice this for awhile. I even wrote them recently pointing out how biased they are and using the coverage they give McCain as opposed to Kerry even though Kerry was the democrats choice for President and McCain didn't make it out of the primaries.
Anyway, I know this is long, but this is more than a "Tin Foil Hat" theory, I think we could actually provide proof of what I like to call the "Black Out" of Kerry news. Right now, I am going to e-mail KO and nicely tell him what I think about his suggestion that Kerry isn't and shouldn't be news anymore. Obviously, the President and McCain don't share that point of view.

[ray of light]

30. The pResident and McCain feel threatened.

And McCain has no chance in h*** of getting the moderate Dems or the liberal vote and maybe not even moderate Republicans because who would support a man who lets his wife and child get SMEARED and the allows the entourage who attacked his family to cozy up to him and kiss him. (Yuck!)

[beachmom]

34. I'll just chime in now about my frustrations

In my local newspaper, Kerry has only been mentioned prominently three times: a picture of him smiling at the inauguration (he was removing somebody's cowboy hat), a hit Op-Ed piece by Sewell (AA conservative) inferring that Carter had to pardon him from naval service because of his anti-war activities, and a pick up of the Boston Globe article about his mediocre grades from Yale, similar to *'s. In summary, this is what readers of my paper must think of Kerry:

1. He's a good sport for a loser
2. He's a traitor for his anti-war activities and wasn't discharged honorably from the Navy
3. He's really just as dumb as *.
4. Other than that, he probably has grown a beard, gotten fat, and become a university professor, since none of his work in the Senate or the many statements he has made EVER are printed in my paper.

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) is my other MSM news outlet and they actually have been much better than my paper. His rebuttals to the president have been shown several times and his work on the Truth in Broadcasting bill was given its own story (although it was more about those gov. ads with many quotes from him). This was pretty fair until 2 weeks ago when his Iraq plan, spoken about at Georgetown and now on the Senate floor this week, was completely ignored while McCain had an interview with Jim Lehrer this week about his Iraq plan. I don't mean to be a baby, but that's just not fair!!!!! I actually watched the McCain interview and liked it very much (he didn't bash Kerry or Democrats; in fact, he let his feelings show how much an idiot he thinks Rumsfeld is, and admitted that he does have second thoughts about the war every time another soldier has fallen). But where was the Kerry interview? Maybe we should e-mail Lehrer about covering Kerry's plan. The News Hour is very slow. They take their time covering stories. It took them forever to cover the DSM, but they eventually had a very good story about it. Since they're slow, it's not too late to get them to cover Kerry's plan. I guess, ideally, it would be great if they just had a "News Maker Interview" like McCain's instead of a news story where it would include criticisms. Should we do that?

I'll get the link.

[ray of light]

36. We definitely should be emailing and calling him.

As we should every 'regular' network. Skip fox. Not worth the time though.

[jenndar]

41. How rad was it, though

that Senator Kerry went on Fox the day of his Georgetown speech?

Fox still slams him, too. They're threatened by him. I have to give them credit for that much.

[Mass]

43. Fox needs to show some signs of being "fair and balanced".

Having Kerry on, or having Clark as a regular host, allow them to keep some semblance of it.

However, I saw on GDP a transcript of Clark's talking today on Fox and I am not sure it is worth it. The host says that Kennedy voted for the IWR (insinuating that he is not entitled to disagree with Bush now) and Clark does not even bother correcting that.

[ray of light]

44. Our side really needs to be better prepared.

No matter who the talking head is. They still seem to not hang tough against these corporate talking heads.

[jenndar]

45. I know that.

I just think it was a canny move on Kerry's part. We're unfortunately living in a time where, if something doesn't catch the attention of the right wing, it often doesn't get news coverage at all. Remember, C-SPAN wasn't even supposed to air that speech. I think appearing on H&C got him more attention than he would have otherwise.

What Clark says or doesn't say on Fox is a separate issue, and I'll agree he's been pretty disappointing. He's not exactly been the model of a dissenting voice.

[karynnj]

51. The people in charge of PBS as of recently are very conservative

and Bush cronies - Bush recently appointed the new head. Their first step was to identify liberal bias. Because you know how biased in favor of liberals the media is.

It scares me hearing that the the LA Times fired a long time liberal writer and will now carry Jonah Goldberg,and CNN fired Aaron Brown, who was basically a moderate. It's like the tabloid garbage of the Limbaugh nonsense is becoming mainstream news.

[YvonneCa]

52. Yes, e-mail them...

...I did. I agree with you...Kerry's plan is good. It needs some publicity.:patriot:

[ginnyinWI]

35. if this is true,

then it's a horribly undemocratic thing to do. They may be trying to suppress Kerry because they don't want him again as the Dem nominee--they want fresh material. The only way this would change is if Kerry got overwhelming popular support--then the media would have no choice.

There's probably some competition going on inside Washington, with certain factions trying to marginalize JK--with the exception of Ted Kennedy and some others, of course. So he has to fight the GOP and parts of his own party as well--because he doesn't play their games?
Another one who wouldn't play games was Jimmy Carter. He came in as a fresh and honest president who didn't play by "rules", and had trouble because of it.

I have noticed the blackout, but think it's been going on for a year now. Maybe it's more noticable because JK is doing more and still getting ignored.

[karynnj]

49. The blackout is amazing in how many facets it has

- He's on TV less than any similarly well known political figure.
- There were so many baseless stories that seek to portray him as awful last year, even though he nearly won even with unfair media bias So much of the Newsweek election issue and book can be considered to be unsupported and negative.
- All year we've seen the Senate force him to take his name off everything. He tricked them this week - but unlike the McCain torture bill this bill is associated with no one in press accounts.
- Many Democrats and Democratic operatives won't dispell lies told about him - which for listeners makes them true.

What I don't understand is what has Kerry ever done to deserve this? McCain is forgiven the Keating 5 scandal, Clinton is apparently forgiven the Lewinsky mess, obviously they are holding something against Kerry. I just don't get it.

[Mass]

39. It will not end this week-end

MTP has Dean and Melhman. (which is good as they have the same role).

This Week Dole vs Schumer (all about 05)

FTN has McCain and Mark Warner, which means that McCain will be able to speak about his plan and attack Kerry's, and all that without anybody to counter, after which we will have to listen to Mark Warner, and hopefully nobody will ask him about Iraq.

No pb against MTP and This Week as they invite the counterparts in the two parties, but FTN seems to push Warner when there are serious issues to talk about.

[ray of light]

40. Do we have any type of "scientific" research to prove these theories?

Like if we really could do this, we could have groups assigned to watch specific shows and count up specific media fraud/favoritism. I think it would give it more creedance then a general speculation.

I wouldn't worry about Fox--but we could divide certain shows, like Inside Politics, Wolf B, Leher (sp?), and we could watch it for a specific amount of time.

Ok..I know it would take time and effort but if a lot of us did this we would have better actual data to support our complaints against the msm.

[whometense]

46. Don't know if it counts as

scientific, but we do have Media Matters, the Center for American Progress Media Center, and FAIR, to start. They're all over this media unfairness, but I'm not so sure they're aware of the media's attitude towards Kerry in particular.

[ray of light]

47. That is true. I knew about those sites but not about any Kerry specific

negativity.

[karynnj]

48. Unfortunately they could say that they cover

politicians who people either want to see or who will likely be important in the future. Asking them may lead to them simply answering that they have many Democrats on and they take pains to select those they feel are best on each issue.

Last year, we could do this as he was the Presidential candidate - the treatment was unfair, but so much is subjective. I actually think getting coverage will be Kerry's hardest job.

[fedupinBushcountry]

50. Media Matters

Actually is pretty good on things said about Kerry that are not true and I noticed how they caught how little MSM covered the Rosa Parks funeral and the speakers.

I put in a search for John Kerry and it came up with 797 articles, most recently Nov. 10th.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=John+Kerry

[ray of light]

55. Actually, that's a greet idea!

google and yahoo search kerry every single day. It pulls his name higher up on the list. ONLY click on the leftie sites not the freepers though or those will go up too.

Also, just swamp the msm (propaganda) networks and let them know that their actions are not being appreciated. For each ONE of us who volunteers to watch their network, there is thousands online to refuse to do so!

LOSS of profits!

[whometense]

56. You may already know this,

but you can sign up for "John Kerry" alerts on Google, Yahoo, and Topix.net, and they deliver the (mostly bad) news to your inbox every day.

It's a good idea to keep doing a daily search, though, for ther reason you mentioned.

[ray of light]

57. no. I didn't know I could sign up for alerts. same thing with CNN.

does it help, you think?

[whometense]

58. I really don't know.

It keeps me up to date, but honestly, about 75% of the crap that lands in my inbox every day is right wing spew. Sometimes I don't have the stomach to click through the links, but you get pretty good at figuring out what you're missing by looking at the first few lines and checking out the source.

It's interesting in an academic kind of way that the right wing is nearly as obsessed with sliming Kerry today as they were a year ago. They clearly still see him as a threat.