Frank,

I told you there is no proof that Kerry was behind the push-polls, etc. I also explained the reasoning why it seems most likely that he was behind them. This is not a "scurrilous attack." SOMEBODY did it, and there are really only a few possibilities. Of those possibilities, only one had any hope of winning Iowa AND New Hampshire, and the calls occurred in both places. You don't have to agree with my conclusions, but I am being neither dishonest nor "scurrilous."   

I also think it's wonderful how you believe what you want to believe from the media and dismiss what you don't. You believe that Kerry has the air of a statesman and Dean does not. Why? the media has told you so. They have taken the one infamous piece of footage of Dean and played it a thousand times in three days, then apologized for it. (By the way, the ABC Mea Culpa has been getting airplay on CNN today!) So you accept the original message and discard the apology. Fine. But then you say "does anyone really trust the media?" when they say Kerry has problems and Dean's problems have been exaggerated. That's very convenient.

I've seen both men in person, and both of them are statesmanlike. Dean is a much better speaker, far more passionate. Kerry has a tendency to seem aloof and out-of-touch, but he's doing well lately. (Kerry now looks like his face has undergone a Michael-Jackson-like transformation, but that's another story)

If you want to bring up the confederate flag issue, let's go there. What Dean said was not, "I approve of the confederate flag." What he said was not "nigger." What he said was that people who have the confederate flag on their trucks ought to be voting democratic. Is this a crime? Does it make sense to say that the Democrats don't want those people's votes? That they'd rather lose?

What was unstated in that speech was: they have the confederate flag on their trucks because they have been mobilized by the racist Republican "southern strategy." Dean has made his deep understanding of this issue clear on repeated occasions, including a speech about the "Southern Strategy" and why we need to unite Blacks and Whites around issues of self-interest, of which the Black Commentator said:

"Howard Dean's December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or who has been President of the United States since Lyndon Johnson's June 4, 1965 affirmative action address to the graduating class at Howard University. "

Of course, the media ignored this speech, but politicians and civil rights groups have not. This is why Dean has more endorsements than any other candidate from Black, Latino, Native American and Asian politicians and organizations, including the former candidate Carol Moseley-Braun.

So, Dean's meaning was clear in context, but the media picked out the "confederate flag" issue and left behind the meaning. By equating Dean's statement with "Chinaman" and "Hymietown" you show that you've either fallen for that hook, line and sinker, or you're willing to do the same kind of distortion as long as it benefits your candidate.

This is exactly the point of "The Note." Dean's statement was distorted to look racist (by the media and now by you) but when an actual racist slur is used at a Kerry event, the media ignore it. When someone brings it up: "well, Dean used a racist slur too." NOT TRUE!

As to your claim that Kerry is right, and that Gephardt and Dean's proposals would raise taxes on the middle class:

No. He's Wrong. Not only did the USA Today point this out a couple of days ago, but Senator Tom Daschle, in the Democratic response to the State of the Union address, himself pointed out that other taxes and fees on the middle class went up as an inevitable result of the Bush Tax Cuts. Take away the tax cuts, those taxes go back down, and the middle class pays LOWER TAXES.

Still, a few of the issues you have NOT disputed are that:

(1) Kerry voted with Bush on most of the issues that will be crucial in this campaign.

(2) Kerry has severe character questions involved in his treatment of his wives, which will inevitably be exploited by Bush

(3) Kerry has taken more special interest money than any other senator in the last fifteen years.

To me, this last is a GIANT issue. He is bought and paid for, and he has already used that money to pay for the presidency. Newsweek's February 9th issue will contain a story, which I excerpt below:



On the campaign trail, Kerry routinely attacks the president for his ties to big-dollar donors. Kerry championed campaign-finance reform, and refused money from corporate or labor political-action committees. But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds. Over the years, reports the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, Kerry has raised more than $30 million for his Senate campaigns. A good portion has come from industries with an interest in the committees on which Kerry has a seat‚--including more than $3 million from financial firms (Kerry serves on the Senate Finance Committee).

(...)

Though he has shunned PAC donations, which are limited to $5,000 apiece, the senator in 2001 formed a fund-raising group called the Citizen Soldier Fund, which brought in more than $1.2 million in unregulated "soft money." Kerry pledged he would limit individual donations to $10,000. But in late 2002, just before new federal laws banning soft money took effect, Kerry quietly lifted the ceiling and took all the cash he could get. In the month before the election, the fund raised nearly 879,000‚--including $27,500 from wireless telecom firms such as T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. That same month, Kerry cosponsored a bill to overturn a judge's ruling and permit the wireless firms to bid on billions of dollars' worth of wireless airwaves. Kerry aide Cutter says it's a "stretch" to draw any connection between the two events.

Why did Kerry abandon his own rules about contribution limits? "This was just before the election, and it was clear the Democrats needed all their resources to fight the Bush money machine," Cutter says. Kerry spread the windfall strategically. More than a third of the fund's contributions went to just three states critical to a senator plotting a run for the White House: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Today that certainly seems like money well spent.


Now, Frank, I know you don't trust the media except when you already agree with them, but take a look at this. He raised huge amounts of money from special interests that could afford to give more than 10,000 dollars, and funneled it to the democratic establishment of Iowa and New Hampshire. a year and half later, those establishment figures work for him and he wins those states by surprisingly, unpredictably large margins. Is it a "scurrilous attack" to suggest there may have been some quid pro quo?

Finally, people who claim that MY attacks on Kerry will cause Bush to win are both craven and wrong.

They're craven because I didn't hear them standing up when everyone was attacking Dean. At that time, the candidate with the most "momentum" was being attacked from every quarter, and the Democratic establishment said nothing. Now, the candidate with the most "momentum" is being attacked far more gently and selectively, and the Democratic establishment says, "whoa, don't do that! You'll win the election for Bush!" I am sick of that kind of self-serving hypocrisy.

They're wrong because the Republicans already have a huge file on Kerry. He almost lost his 1996 election in the Senate to Republican Bill Weld, partly because of a long ad campaign from the opposition that highlighted all the issues I have raised and questioned Kerry's ethics. That was in Massachusetts, where over 70% of voters are registered Democrats. All Rove has to do is point out the exact same things nationwide, where the race is naturally far closer, and Kerry will lose. My attacks are insignificant.

I will continue to point out Kerry's weaknesses, in the hope that I can get a stronger candidate nominated. That's what the selection process is about. I firmly believe that Kerry has no hope of winning against Bush, so I do not feel I am damaging the Democrats' hopes of winning the White House.

However, in response to Guest's question above, I will hold my nose and vote for Kerry if he wins the nomination.
n