BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: LadyJean
Date: 07 Feb 04 - 01:03 AM

Somebody tell me why Kerry supported the Patriot Act. I'm a writer. Oddly, I oppose a law that might put me in jail. I wrote a little skit in which the Bush twins, after falling all over themselves catch Osama bin Laden in a ski lodge in Aspen. I emailed it to several of my friends. Now, I wonder when they'll come for me. Kerry swore to uphold the constitution, more than once I think! Why did he support a bill that trashes it?

(Oh, copies of the skit supplied on request. It's a musical set to some old time rock and roll songs. The Bush twins song Working USA is pretty funny, even if I did write it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 04:16 PM

Yeah, Nerd, politics will do that to you. Take it from someone who has been at them far too long.

Nerd has always been a great Mudcatter. I think there is so much at stake this time that everyone is getting edgy. Nerd...........stay in the saddle, sir. Direct that marvelous energy into whoever the candidate is.

Frank ...... you have wonderful clarity on the issues, tempered by a healthy dose of realism.

All the best to both of you,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 03:37 PM

Frank,

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention, but I understand that I may have come on too strong.

I honestly thought you were being purposely obtuse and not acknowledging such things as my explanation of how the press got the "Dean sealed his records" story wrong. If not, a double apology is in order.

Also, I did, and still do, think Frank's changing the story from "Dean has opened the records by releasing them to a judge" to "The State of Vermont confiscated the records," was unconscionable, and was the exact kind of intentional baiting that Big Mick accused me of above. It was, in short, a "scurrilous attack," in Frank's sense. If I am guilty of it, I think Frank was too.

I should say, though, that I do respect Frank and think this thread may have brought out the worst in all concerned.

I think perhaps we should let this thread die.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 10:15 AM

Frank, I have watched you, throughout this discussion remain civil in the face of the baiting. I fought off jumping in and pointing this out, because if you were willing to ignore this attitude from Nerd and maintain the civil, and intelligent, discourse then I had no business mucking it up. Congratulations on laying out your thoughts in a well thought out and understandable way.

How many times in the course of my career, have I seen these "new" Democrats? Several other candidates in my lifetime have been said to be re-energizing the left. What happens? Usually, because they are almost always cults of personality, the hordes of new, re-energized acolytes, when their candidate falls apart disappear and are never heard from again. I am hopeful the Dean followers won't be the same.

Nerd ..... get a grip. You think the enemy is Kerry. It isn't. It's George W. Your treatment of Frank, and the rhetoric you use, even while he is treating you with grace and respect, does not speak well. I hope you can see that politics are about ones principles and not about any one candidate. The only thing that is important this year is beating George W. Bush.

Frank, thanks for a great thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 09:24 AM

Correction:
I meant that Gore had the same attitude toward George Bush.

Goodbye Nerd and good luck to you.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 09:22 AM

Nerd, this will be the last post you hear from me.

You have offered very little of use to me to endorse Dean.

Here's my final take. Dean is probably an honorable man but his style of campaigning is reminiscent of Al Gore. I can hear him breathing heavilly in condescension.

The American people know this and as a result, he will be defeated.

The confederate flag thing did him in. Bush will use the sealing of records.

I consider your presentation disrespectful of me, Nerd. This is the same attitude that will see Dean be defeated.

Gore had the same condescension toward Al Gore.   Gore was right on all the issues and probably is the real president of the US but his attitude did him in. It's not just about issues.

That's my final word.   The floor is yours.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 02:34 AM

Today's Boston Globe reveals that Kerry accepted about 50,000 dollars from an insurance company he helped out by preserving a legal loophole. Kerry's now under fire from the Center for Public Integrity:

"WASHINGTON -- A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the Big Dig. Senator John F. Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation.

Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.

Were the two connected? Kerry says not.

But some government watchdogs said they see the tale of the Massachusetts senator's 2000 intervention, detailed in documents obtained by the Associated Press, as a textbook case of the special interest politicking that Kerry rails against on the presidential trail.

"The idea that Kerry has not helped or benefited from a specific special interest, which he has said, is utterly absurd," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity , which just published a book on political donations to the presidential candidates.

"Anyone who gets millions of dollars over time, and thousands of dollars from specific donors, knows there's a symbiotic relationship. He needs the donors' money. The donors need favors. Welcome to Washington. That is how it works."

Give me good Ol' Vermont politics any time.

full story here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/05/critics_question_candidates_links_to_projects_insurer/

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:33 PM

Oops! I messed up the Italics thing! Here is is again, corrected:

What I said:

there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE.

Your response:

If there is no evidence how can something be proven?

You are making no sense. I didn't say there was no evidence, I said there WAS evidence, but that it did not constitue PROOF. What is so hard to understand about that?

Your statement that evidence is invalid if it is not hard proof is untrue in practially every venue. In Science, for example, evidence is used to construct models or theories of how the universe works. But these are never considered "hard proof." It is always possible that other evidence will come along and disprove a previous theory.

In the law, a case can be made on the grounds of circumstantial evidence that does not constitute "hard proof." You have to convince a jury that the person accused had "means, motive and opportunity," and eliminate the other possible explanations.

If Bush were put on trial right now for misleading the American people, he would probably not be convicted. But one way or the other, the case made by the prosecution would by necessity be one of circumstantial evidence like I described above. To get "hard proof" you'd have to read Bush's mind, or produce a document in his own hand stating that he did not believe that Iraq had WMD at the time he claimed they did. I doubt if such a document exists.

This is why I say that my claims about Kerry are similar to your own claims about Bush. Kerry was the only one with the means to do the calls in both states (he had the ground research to identify Dean's "ones," which even the Republicans didn't have), the motive to do it in both states (Gephardt and Edwards and Clark et al had nothing to gain in NH), and the opportunity (Gephardt was already out by NH). That is what constitutes a strong case based on circumstantial evidence. It's just as strong as the case against Bush at this point, though a subpoena to Bush's records might produce a "smoking gun" document.

I think he blasted Dean for saying that because it was a stupid thing to say. Kerry would insist that everyone has a fair trial.

You're simply revealing your ignorance again. Dean was asked directly whether Osama Bin Laden should have a trial, and he answered with exactly what you claim to be Kerry's position, that everyone deserves a trial. Kerry attacked him for it.

This is what got Dean into trouble (from CNN.com)

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Now, Kerry went on for weeks claiming that Dean's statement had been otrageous, without explaining what he meant. This is how he led many Americans to believe he was for simply shooting Bin Laden.

After railing against Dean on this issue for a long time, Kerry finally admitted that he, too, thought Osama Bin Laden should get a trial, but that he had already decided Bin Laden would get the death penalty:

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Kerry said of Dean's bin Laden remark: "The question asked [to Dean] was, do you believe Osama bin Laden should be tried in the United States and given the death penalty? The answer to both questions is a simple yes. Yes and Yes."

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/28/kerry_urges_nh_to_vote_against_dean/)


So, Dean's stated position:

We should respect the rule of law and not pre-judge a jury trial

Kerry's:

Osama should be tried, but I've also already decided he should get the death penalty.

Kerry argued that Dean's remark was outrageous because he wouldn't pronounce a sentence before the trial.

Now which makes more sense to you? Personally, I think Dean does.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 05:23 PM

Frank, it's very frustrating to respond to you. Read my statement and your reponse below:

What I said:

there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE.

Your response:

If there is no evidence how can something be proven?

You are making no sense. I didn't say there was no evidence, I said there WAS evidence, but that it did not constitue PROOF. What is so hard to understand about that?

Your statement that evidence is invalid if it is not hard proof is untrue in practially every venue. In Science, for example, evidence is used to construct models or theories of how the universe works. But these are never considered "hard proof." It is always possible that other evidence will come along and disprove a previous theory.

In the law, a case can be made on the grounds of circumstantial evidence that does not constitute "hard proof." You have to convince a jury that the person accused had "means, motive and opportunity," and eliminate the other possible explanations.

If Bush were put on trial right now for misleading the American people, he would probably not be convicted. But one way or the other, the case made by the prosecution would by necessity be one of circumstantial evidence like I described above. To get "hard proof" you'd have to read Bush's mind, or produce a document in his own hand stating that he did not believe that Iraq had WMD. I doubt if such a document exists.

This is why I say that my claims about Kerry are similar to your own claims about Bush. Kerry was the only one with the means to do the calls in both states (he had the ground research to identify Dean's "ones," which even the Republicans didn't have), the motive to do it in both states (Gephardt and Edwards had nothing to gain in NH), and the opportunity (Gephardt was already out by NH). That is what constitutes a strong case based on circumstantial evidence. It's just as strong as the case against Bush at this point, though a subpoena to Bush's records might produce a "smoking gun" document.

I think he blasted Dean for saying that because it was a stupid thing to say. Kerry would insist that everyone has a fair trial.

You're simply revealing your ignorance again. Dean was asked directly whether Osama Bin Laden should have a trial, and he answered with exactly what you claim to be Kerry's position, that everyone deserves a trial. Kerry attacked him for it.

This is what got Dean into trouble (from CNN.com)

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Now, Kerry went on for weeks claiming that Dean's statement had been otrageous, without explaining what he meant. This is how he led many Americans to believe he was for simply shooting Bin Laden.

After railing against Dean on this issue for a long time, Kerry finally admitted that he, too, thought Osama Bin Laden should get a trial, but that he had already decided Bin Laden would get the death penalty:

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Kerry said of Dean's bin Laden remark: "The question asked [to Dean] was, do you believe Osama bin Laden should be tried in the United States and given the death penalty? The answer to both questions is a simple yes. Yes and Yes."

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/28/kerry_urges_nh_to_vote_against_dean/)


So, Dean's stated position:

We should respect the rule of law and not pre-judge a jury trial

Kerry's:

Osama should be tried, but I've also already decided he should get the death penalty.

Kerry argued that Dean's remark was outrageous because he wouldn't pronounce a sentence before the trial.

Now which makes more sense to you? Personally, I think Dean does.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 04:46 PM

Frank, I fear you have gone a bit loopy on us. Your posts are sounding more bizarre and addled as you try to make Dean sound worse and worse.

For example, you are now making the hysterical claim that Dean's records were "confiscated by the state of Vermont."

Dean was the Governor of the State of Vermont. His gubernatorial records are, and always have been, the property of the state of Vermont. The state cannot "confiscate" them.

What happened was that Dean agreed to a variance from the Vermont law requiring these records to be sealed, provided the release of the records did not violate someone's privacy. In order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he is not involving himself at all in he process of selecting a judge to make that determination. He trusts the State of Vermont to do this fairly, despite the fact that the new governor is a Republican.

As for my statement that you seem to be saying that "all republicans are evil malicious people who would misuse records of Gay people to harm them,"

I'm basing this on your statement that

"Regarding
the records for the gay people, if they are being controlled by a Republican
wouldn't it make sense that they have access to these records anyway and
would use them maliciously if they needed to"

That sounds pretty clearly like you are saying that just because Republicans control the records they will be used maliciously. In other words, the simple fact that they are Republican means that they are malicious. If this was not your intent, I apologize. But logically, that is what your statement implied. I think you were the one to enter "attack mode" with that statement.

Your claim that

He decided to use a judge from a Republican
administration involving material that would compromise
gay people. Doesn't that strike you as being a little strange?

is in the same mode, sugesting that just because the people are Republicans, it's suspicious that Dean should trust them to do the right thing. Besides the obvious logical fallacy (if he expected these people to do their worst, it is even LESS likely that there is anything incriminating involved, not more likely as you seem to suggest), it reveals a suspicion that all Republicans are malicious.

The fact that it's a Republican administration doesn't matter much. The person in office is his successor as Governor of Vermont, and the state laws and State officials are ones that he knows and trusts.

Perhaps you're so used to Washington politics that you can't imagine Democrats and Republicans trusting each other enough for Dean to do this. But believe me, in Vermont, politics are far more civil--which is one of the things that hurt Dean in Iowa, by the way. Jeffords (Ind) and Leahy (Dem) and Dean (Dem) and Sanders (ind--socialist!), for example, are all great friends, and Jeffords (a former Republican, now an independent) has endorsed Dean. They simply don't play for big money stakes in Vermont, so no-one has much to gain by being corrupt, and no-one is out to screw people in the opposing party.

In fact, Vermonters don't mix money and politics much at all.

I'll tell you a true Vermont story to back this up. As you know, "Carpet-Baggers" sometimes hastily set up residence in a state and then run for the Senate a few months later (this is what Hillary Clinton did in my native NY--not that I'm complaining). In 1998, a carpet-Bagging Republican millionaire from Massachusetts, Jack McMullen, tried to do this in Vermont. He wanted to replace Democratic Senator Pat Leahy.

In response, an eighty-year-old retired Dairy Farmer and registered Republican named Fred Tuttle, already famous in-state from his role in a Vermont "mockumentary," ran against McMullen in the Republican primary, with a campaign warchest of $201.00

Yes, that's Two Hundred and one dollars.

"Fred," as he is simply known in Vermont, defeated McMullen in the Republican primary, with 55 percent of the vote. Then he did what everyone expected him to do: he endorsed Leahy and went home.

The moral of this story is that Vermonters respect one another, despite differences of belief and of party. They believe that other Vermonters have Vermont's best interests at heart. This allowed Tuttle to garner support regardless of money. Vermonters simply realized it was better for their state to have a Vermonter in office, regardless of party, than to have a carpet-bagger. And that was that.

Dean HAS had his share of controversy in Vermont, but it was almost all due to the civil unions legislation, which offended many Christian conservatives. None of the people currently in office are aligned with these extremists, so Dean simply trusts the current administration to use decency and discretion.

It's sad that this seems so suspicious to you. I think we need MORE Vermont-style politics in America, not less.

Now,as to your bizarre and fanciful claim-cum-attack that

No one would know whether his private letters were illegal or
not. If they are not available to compromise anyone, they would
not be illegal. They would not be confiscated by the State of Vermont.

you make several errors before you begin foaming at the mouth with your claims about confiscation. First, I never said that his letters were illegal, only that burning them would be illegal. Second, you have confused correspondence with Dean the private citizen and correspondence with Dean the Governor. If mail is addressed to the Governor of Vermont, at his office in Montpelier, it becomes part of Dean's gubernatorial record. He cannot burn or shred such documents. Not only is it illegal, as I said, but you would now be screaming about the fact that he "burned his records." If the mail comes to his house in South Burlington, then it is private and he can do what he wants. The documents I was talking about came to his office, so they were not private letters to be burned as Dean pleased.

Perhaps you don't have an office job, Frank. If someone comes to my office and gives me his card for my rolodex, that becomes the property of the office I work for. If someone sends mail to me as director of a folklife center, that becomes property of the folklife center. I can't burn such letters, or take my records and my rolodex with me if I leave my job. They are not my property. Many offices have a liberal policy here (mine would allow me to copy my rolodex and files, for example), but the files are property of the office.

So once again, nothing has been confiscated by the state of Vermont. All the materials we're talking about have always been Vermont property. Your statement is pure unadulterated lunacy, and you're spreading a vicious and hateful lie if you keep repeating it.

And as to your ridiculous persistence in repeating that Dean has "sealed his records," you are repeating and repeating and repeating this misleading allegation. Dean's records were sealed by the normal processes of Vermont law. UNSEALING them required Dean's direct action, which he has taken. It is now in the hands of the State of Vermont to release what it wishes to release. Dean can do no more. He has done what you ask.

I have explained this over and over, but you refuse to understand it. Please let this drop. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point!

As to your statement

I don't have "moral outrage". I believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue.

you certainly sound above like you have "moral outrage." Your persistence in repeating the mantra that "Dean sealed his records," without even once acknowledging my statement that he did NOT seal his records belies your claim that you believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue. In a dialogue you would have said at least "I do not believe that you are telling the truth about this." Then you would perhaps have provided some evidence.

Instead, you say "then why did he seal his records" as though I had never mentioned this. That is not dialogue, it's downright rude.

Finally, your statement that

I think that the Dean campaign might be fueled by a kind of "moral outrage" that clouds decisions.

Sounds suspiciously like "I know you are, but what am I?"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 03:27 PM

Hi Nerd,

More responses to your responses.


You say,
" What I said was that there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE."

If there is no evidence how can something be proven? I don't understand this statement.

"I compared this with the WMD claims of the government, thus: in order to PROVE that Bush misled us you would have to show decisively that HE DID NOT BELIEVE there were WMD in Iraq when he made the claim."

I think that this can be proven in that he lied to the American people. I don't know what he believed.

" You can never prove that, because you can't read minds. So there is NO PROOF of this. As you rightly say, there is a lot of EVIDENCE."

I could prove this in a court of law that Bush lied to the American
people and the proof is that there are no weapons of mass destruction.

"As to the push-polls: the evidence I have is from FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS."

I have no personal reason to dispute you but I must question this accusation as I don't know how valid it is.


" I have spoken to people who received the calls. I cannot recreate these conversations for you."

|It is entirely conceivable that they were made by groups outside
the Kerry camp if they actually occurred.

"However, a few negative Kerry calls have been caught on tape, including one that accused Dean of "environmental racism" because Vermont's nuclear waste was dumped in Texas--even though Texas had control of where the waste went, not Dean! You can find this story at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/ThisWeek/Kerry_Dean_calls_040117-1.html"

I will look at this but again prove that it was that anyone close to
Kerry did this. I believe Kerry would have fired any operative that
engaged in this. I will say however that there are those who might support Bush as operatives that would employ such tactics to weaken Kerry.

"So that's a documented negative call made by the Kerry campaign."

Or not. Maybe someone outside the campaign.

"The others did occur, unless you want to call my friends liars."

I don't want to get into a personal argument with you. I'll stick with the issues.

" No one can prove that Kerry was behind them, except that as I pointed out only he could hope to gain in both states. So I gave the evidence, and the reasoning, AND explained why it's similar to your own claim that Bush misled the American people."

No, it's difference. It's hearsay. The ABC news document notwithstanding.

"To wit: I gave evidence, not hard proof, just as you have done."

This means that the evidence is invalid if it is not hard proof.


" What I said was that Kerry made it LOOK like he was willing to execute Bin Laden without a trial, by attacking Dean for saying that Bin Laden SHOULD have a trial. Kerry took no firm position, so he could waffle later. This occurred at one of the debates."

When and where did this occur?

"But Kerry did not stop there. On December 28th, Boston Globe:

Kerry urges N.H. to vote against Dean
Places emphasis on state's primary
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 12/28/2003

"Kerry, speaking to supporters at this city's public library, blasted Dean for recently saying that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deserved a fair trial for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"

I think he blasted Dean for saying that because it was a stupid thing to say. Kerry would insist that everyone has a fair trial.

"Is this clear enough for you, or will you even defend Kerry taking THIS unconstitutional position?"

The only thing that is clear is your interpretation of the statement.
I'm going to check on this statement that you cited.

"Frank, this can go on and on. But I don't think our fellow 'catters care to read our arguments anymore. Something tells me we're not helping our respective candidates with this thread anymore. "

Nerd, I think that the 'catters can judge for themselves whether
we are helping candidates or whether they want to continue to hear what we say.

At this point,I sense that anger and passion runs high and clouds the discussion on a rational level. But I believe some of the questions
I have about the substance and style of the Dean campaign reflected
in our conversation leaves me with great doubts as to whether Dean
can beat Bush.

I think it's not a matter of who is "right or wrong" or the issues
being "black and white" but a matter of a reasonable dialogue free
from insinuations, flames, name-calling and I hope that this approach is not representative of all of those who support Dean.

I believe I have reasonable questions about Dean and have replied to you in a reasonable manner.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 02:49 PM

Hi Nerd,

I guess I missed the word "major" in your post.   Sorry about that.

"He is not hiding anything, as I said. He has turned the records over to the state of Vermont. AND, I explained exactly why records were sealed."

I've had a chance to think about that. There's something
strange about this story. I think that he had a hand in sealing
those records.   A judge didn't just step in and confiscate
them. The idea of compromising people seems like an excuse
to me. If I had some document that I thought would compromise
anyone, as an astute politician, I wouldn't let it hang around.

"There HAS to be an impartial judge, and he decided to use...an actual judge! For you to say that a Republican administration assigning a judge to the matter is automatically evil just means you have a twisted hatred of all Republicans."

This statement is twisted in itself. I don't hate Republicans at
all but I realize that in an election year anything is fair game.
Look at Watergate. He decided to use a judge from a Republican
administration involving material that would compromise
gay people. Doesn't that strike you as being a little strange?

"If he had a DUI record it would not be in his gubernatorial papers, but in police records; this is another half baked and ridiculous statement."

Well supposing he had ties to lobbying interests himself. Suppose he does have something to hide. We won't know about that because
those items are suppressed. Otherwise why bother to seal them
at all? The "compromise" story sounds fishy.

"And, by the way, he could not simply burn letters. Not only would that be illegal, if he did it, you would be screaming that Dean "burned his records." That's another ridiculous suggestion."

No one would know whether his private letters were illegal or
not. If they are not available to compromise anyone, they would
not be illegal. They would not be confiscated by the State of Vermont.

"As to the idea that all republicans are evil malicious people who would misuse records of Gay people to harm them: once again, you're only showing your own hatred and prejudice.:

This is a twisted statement and not at all what I have ever said or wrote. It's this kind of distortion of what people say that
will ensure Dean's defeat. This is a statement in "attack mode"
and I hope not reflective of the Dean campaign. It sounds like
something someone from outside the Dean campaign would say. It's doing a good job for George W. Bush.


"If you admit it shouldn't be that way, then where do you get the moral outrage from?"

I don't have "moral outrage". I believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue. I think that the Dean campaign might be fueled by a kind of "moral outrage" that clouds decisions.

" You're saying you agree it's wrong that Dean should have to show these records, but since some vague unwritten law makes it "that way" you will fight tooth and nail to characterize him as immoral unless he DOES show them."

Is that what I'm saying? I think what I said was that if Dean has
nothing to hide, (aside from the issue of compromising certain people which can be handled easilly) that why should he seal his records?
Bush did the same thing as governor of Texas.

I'm not going to get into a petty argument about what words mean.
I think my definition is correct.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 02:11 PM

More responses to Frank:

Quote from yuor post of 04 Feb 04 - 03:24 PM:

"You said, however,
" I said there was no proof, but a lot of evidence."

How can there be evidence with no proof of it's existence?

Wha? Proof without evidence of "it's [sic] existence?" What the heck are you talking about? What I said was that there is no PROOF, but a lot of EVIDENCE. I didn't say there was "no proof of the existence of evidence," which is what you seem to be saying.

I compared this with the WMD claims of the government, thus: in order to PROVE that Bush misled us you would have to show decisively that HE DID NOT BELIEVE there were WMD in Iraq when he made the claim. You can never prove that, because you can't read minds. So there is NO PROOF of this. As you rightly say, there is a lot of EVIDENCE.

As to the push-polls: the evidence I have is from FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS. I have spoken to people who received the calls. I cannot recreate these conversations for you. However, a few negative Kerry calls have been caught on tape, including one that accused Dean of "environmental racism" because Vermont's nuclear waste was dumped in Texas--even though Texas had control of where the waste went, not Dean! You can find this story at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/ThisWeek/Kerry_Dean_calls_040117-1.html

So that's a documented negative call made by the Kerry campaign.

The others did occur, unless you want to call my friends liars. No one can prove that Kerry was behind them, except that as I pointed out only he could hope to gain in both states. So I gave the evidence, and the reasoning, AND explained why it's similar to your own claim that Bush misled the American people.

To wit: I gave evidence, not hard proof, just as you have done.

Again, what is the source of the statement that Kerry wanted to execute
bin Laden without a trial? I find that hard to believe.

That's not what I said. What I said was that Kerry made it LOOK like he was willing to execute Bin Laden without a trial, by attacking Dean for saying that Bin Laden SHOULD have a trial. Kerry took no firm position, so he could waffle later. This occurred at one of the debates.

But Kerry did not stop there. On December 28th, Boston Globe:

Kerry urges N.H. to vote against Dean
Places emphasis on state's primary
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 12/28/2003

(...)

Kerry, speaking to supporters at this city's public library, blasted Dean for recently saying that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden deserved a fair trial for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks

(...)


Is this clear enough for you, or will you even defend Kerry taking THIS unconstitutional position?

Frank, this can go on and on. But I don't think our fellow 'catters care to read our arguments anymore. Something tells me we're not helping our respective candidates with this thread anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 12:26 PM

Frank, you obviously either didn't read my last post or don't care about a rational argument. For example:

Then it is true that Kucinich did take issue with Dean. Nothing scurrilous
about this observation. Dean said at one point that he was the only candidate that opposed the war.

Here you just completely ignored my previous statement when it disagreed with your position, but accepted it when it agreed. So once again, Dean said he was the only "major" candidate who opposed the war. If you don't see the difference between that and "the only candidate that opposed the war" then you should check your eyes.

Why would he need to hide anything?

He is not hiding anything, as I said. He has turned the records over to the state of Vermont. AND, I explained exactly why records were sealed. As I also explained above, he couldn't himself have picked out only those things that he knows for a fact would compromise people, as you suggest, because people like you wouldn't trust his judgment anyway. You would still be saying "his records are sealed!" This is grossly misleading because the majority of his records are already NOT sealed. This fact doesn't make you reluctant to cry "his records are sealed" now, when about 40% of them are sealed, why should it make you reluctant if only about 30% were sealed?

There HAS to be an impartial judge, and he decided to use...an actual judge! For you to say that a Republican administration assigning a judge to the matter is automatically evil just means you have a twisted hatred of all Republicans. My mother and my mother-in-law and many of my friends are Republicans, and I would have no hesitation in revealing sensitive secrets to them if I had to because I trust them to do the right thing.

In fact, for you to claim that giving them to a Republican already compromises the gay letter-writers is absurd. The Republican is the governor of Vermont. Vermont has laws to protect people, which is exactly why the records are sealed. The current governor has no interest in running roughshod over the laws of Vermont to make a Governor's job harder.

So, once again, Dean did not "seal his records." The State of Vermont does that as a matter of course. Dean extended the seal to protect people who wrote letters to him.

If he had a DUI record it would not be in his gubernatorial papers, but in police records; this is another half baked and ridiculous statement.

The records are now the property of the State of Vermont. Dean does not even have a lawyer disputing the case, he is merely allowing the State to handle it.

And, by the way, he could not simply burn letters. Not only would that be illegal, if he did it, you would be screaming that Dean "burned his records." That's another ridiculous suggestion.

As to the idea that all republicans are evil malicious people who would misuse records of Gay people to harm them: once again, you're only showing your own hatred and prejudice.

You also make a singularly irrational statement when you say

Everything is fair game. It shouldn't be that way but it is.

If you admit it shouldn't be that way, then where do you get the moral outrage from? You're saying you agree it's wrong that Dean should have to show these records, but since some vague unwritten law makes it "that way" you will fight tooth and nail to characterize him as immoral unless he DOES show them.


And the word Scurrilous means, according to the OED:

Characterized by coarseness or indecency of language, esp. in jesting and invective.

Webster's gives it as:

1. Using, or given to using, the language of low buffoonery
2. Containing low indecency or abuse; coarsely opprobious; obscenely jocular


So you are wrong about that, too. It means just what I said it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 03:24 PM

Hi Nerd,

If you did not accuse Kerry of push-polls and there is no proof they
were committed by Kerry's people, then I did misread your post and I apologize.

You said, however,
" I said there was no proof, but a lot of evidence."

How can there be evidence with no proof of it's existence?

The sealing of the records by Dean was reported on "All Things Considered"
on NPR.

Regarding this statement on Israel, what is the source? When and where
did he say that Dean wanted to pull out of our alliance in Israel?


" Dean used the word "even-handed." Kerry and the other candidates piled on, saying that we are Israel's ally, and how could Dean say we needed to be "even-handed" or impartial? My God, they railed, he wants to pull out of our alliance with Israel!"



Again, what is the source of the statement that Kerry wanted to execute
bin Laden without a trial? I find that hard to believe.

I interpret Kerry's remarks about Dean's tax plan differently. He just said
that he didn't have one. That's what was implied by it being "secret".
So, what is Dean's tax plan?

Kerry said that he would reduce the amount of tax for the middle class
and make sure that the wealthy would be a fair share.

You say,
"Kerry spins that to mean that Dean has a sinister plan but is keeping it secret."

I don't agree. Nothing sinister about it. It's a fact. It's not there.

I believe that Kerry or Clinton was not as dependent on "special interest"
money as is Bush. Special interest money is controlling the government
at the present time and was not as much during Clinton. It certainly isn't
Kerry's motive because his "war chest" doesn't come anywhere near
Bush's.    I'm not saying there isn't some "special interest" money involved in every election including that of Howard Dean's gubernatorial campaign. Special interest money is a fact of life. No president or public politician gets elected without it. I say it's a matter of degree. Historically not every president who takes it is beholden to the contributors. Otherwise we
wouldn't have the Sherman-Patman Anti-Trust Laws and other reforms
by presidents who received this money. I'm not in favor of special interests
controlling the government but I do believe that no elected official that I
know of has ever gotten there without it.

Regarding your "facts" I never said that I couldn't dispute them. I am doing so now.

You say,

"In the same way, there is no proof, but a lot of evidence, that Bush misled the American people about going to war. That is a claim that Kerry makes."

I never heard him make that claim. Bush did mislead the American people
and there is plenty of evidence for that.

You say,
" if you insist on complete smoking-gun proof for everything, you'll never be able to make a political decision."

I don't think so. I think there is obvious evidence that Bush mislead the
American people. The futile search for WMD's after what he said was
the pretext to going to war is self-evident even if Republicans deny it
for political reasons.

You say,
"So I respect your decision that the evidence in this case does not convince you that Kerry is guilty. It convinces me. But I strongly reject the notion that it was scurrilous (once again, see the bottom of this post), or even an attack."

I was specifically talking about the push-pull accusations when I used the
word scurrilous. That was in reference to the idea that Kerry supported this.
If that's not what you said, then I'm sorry but I reacted to it because there
seemed to be an inference that Kerry is conducting a "dirty" campaign.
If that's not what you said, then I apologize.


You say,


" At one point Dean was saying he was the only "major candidate" who opposed the war in Iraq. This pissed Dennis Kucinich off, because he was not being considered a "major candidate." DK took issue with Dean, and Dean has since been very careful to include Kucinich every time. At the last debate, for example, he said "All the congressional candidates, except for Dennis, supported the war."

Then it is true that Kucinich did take issue with Dean. Nothing scurrilous
about this observation. Dean said at one point that he was the only candidate that opposed the war. Dean recanted about Kucinich. I'm glad to hear that.
But it could have been sooner. Made Dean look like he was the only one.
That was a gaffe. It made him look bad.

" We're talking about correspondence, notes, memos, and other items that would in any other environment be considered private; we are NOT talking about policy decisions, bills, positions, political appointments, etc. All those things are public by nature."

How do you know this? Do you know which "records" were sealed and which were not? Why hide anything if you are running for president? If Dean is so free from corrupting influences why would he need to hide anything?

"The media-created "controversy," which you seem to have fallen for, is about the fact that Dean extended the seal for an extra four years."

Why did he need to do this? What was so important that he had to hide it?

"The reasons for records being sealed are many. Primary among them are privacy concerns of correspondents."

Such as items like Bush's DUI arrests. Not saying that Dean has anything
remotely like this in his past but why not reveal records?

"In this case, Dean signed some very controversial legislation, the first bill in the whole country providing equal civil rights for gay people. When he did that, he received a torrent of thank-you mail from gay Americans, from all over the country, some of whom were not "out" and therefore asked for confidentiality. If he simply released all his records, those people would be publicly "outed."

That seems legitimate but what about other records? After all, he is running for president and his life would be in a goldfish bowl anyway. Regarding
the records for the gay people, if they are being controlled by a Republican
wouldn't it make sense that they have access to these records anyway and
would use them maliciously if they needed to?

You say,
"There are other privacy concerns as well. Dean judged that ten years would protect these people better than six."

Well that's OK for the average citizen. Running for president is different.
Everything is fair game. It shouldn't be that way but it is. If you run for president, every record is called into question.

You say,
"Now, the other candidates have insisted that Dean make more of his correspondence public. He is perfectly willing to do so, as long as none of these people who need confidentiality are compromised."

But the fact that you know this and I know this makes them already compromised. Particularly if they are under the juridiction of some
Republican official.

You say,
" Someone therefore has to make individual judgments about each document, looking at each one and deciding if it represents a legitimate privacy issue. "Dean obviously cannot do this himself or pay someone to do it, or (very rightly) no-one would trust the results. So what is his best option? Release them to an impartial judge."

" The administration is Republican, by the way, so no one can cry that Dean turned this over to his cronies."

This hardly constitutes an "impartial" judge.

"Tell me, Frank, what would you have done differently?"

I would have stated by protestation that the gay informants were compromised by the revealing of these records or I would have burned
the letters that were written by those who needed to be protected.
I would not have given them to a Republican judge to make political
hay with it. The other letters or items could go into public record. Why not?

You say,
"Finally, I've been using the term "scurrilous" in fun to describe your own baseless and ill-informed attacks, because you used it in a post long ago above. But I don't think you know what the word scurrilous means.

You also say,
"It means abuse characterized by coarseness or indecency of language."

Excuse me but I looked up the word in the dictionary. It comes from the
word "scurril" and it means indecently abusive. And any suggestion that
a push-pull pressure on voters comes from the Kerry camp would fit
that definition precisely.

Frank   










.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry (the hammer)nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 11:16 AM

On a lighter note, Kerry nailed a great deal more than Newhamshire but not in an election race, try motel.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 10:37 AM

Dean was not expecting to win Michigan. His "stand," if it does occur, will be in Washington and then Wisconsin.

It's not over, but Kerry is looking stronger!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 10:08 AM

The National Review exit poll was not too far off the track (Feb. 3, 4 pm). Clark did take New Mexico by a few hundred votes, with Edwards and Kerry close behind. Sharpton got 10% in SC as another interesting note. Dean demonstrated no particular strength, drawing no more than about 10%. And it now appears, according to the Detroit Free Press poll, that Michigan will go overwhelmingly for Kerry.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 12:51 AM

Donuel,

That's disgusting (but funny!)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: beadie
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 09:05 PM

I believe that you're right, Nerd, NM is a caucus, and, for that matter, so is North Dakota.

NPR is reporting now, after the Eastern Time zone polls have closed, that Edwards does, indeed, seem to be polling at around 45% in SC.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:05 PM

My Kerry Poster:

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerry1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:00 PM

Hi Beadie,

Thanks for the info and the clarification. Since you posted the info, it's been moved from the forum to the front page of the National Review Online, and when you click on it you get the story, prefaced by "according to sources." Hence my post.

I think NM is a caucus state, so we'll have to see how that one pans out. And of course Dean could pick up 1% more in DE or 2% more in AZ and come out of it with some delegates.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: beadie
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:43 PM

This wasn't even a NR report, but, rather, a post to one of their fora.

I am not expressing an opinion for or against Governor Dean, merely observing the "trend" in an inherently unreliable (I think) method of pre-determining the outcome of any election.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:35 PM

Great journalism. The NR's exit polls are prefaced by:

"According to sources:"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:16 PM

Beadie,

What a surprise! The National Review doesn't like Dean!

I hate to burst your bubble, but Dean will not quit at this stage, even if he gets no delegates today. He has at least eight or nine million dollars left, and you have to remember, an absurdly small percentage of the delegates have been assigned so far. Dean essentially skipped these races in order to make a stand later on.

However, if those numbers hold, Lieberman will almost certainly drop out.

Also, I notice that the state where Dean has the best chance, NM, is not listed yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: beadie
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:06 PM

A poster to The National Review is reporting these as exit poll results in some of today's primary and caucus states ;

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11


?? Au Revoir, monsieur l'docteur ?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:45 PM

Frank,

those were the titles of Kerry's press releases. Each one was an unfair attack. To say that something was a "flub," for example, is clearly a judgement call, not a fact. Therefore they were examples of the "negative campaigning" you accuse Dean of.

To use the "flub" as an example: Dean said that when sitting down to a bargaining table with Israel and the Palestinian authority, we had to be impartial to be seen as a credible mediator. He used the word "even-handed." Kerry and the other candidates piled on, saying that we are Israel's ally, and how could Dean say we needed to be "even-handed" or impartial? My God, they railed, he wants to pull out of our alliance with Israel!

No one could seriously believe that Dean (whose wife and children are Jewish) would abandon our support for Israel, but they decided to pretend that was what he said. In fact, e-mails claiming that Dean was a rabid anti-semite circulated in the Jewish community, but I don't guess that John Kerry had anything to do with that (I suspect Lieberman, who needs the Jewish vote, but there's no real evidence). It's just another example of Kerry's false outrage.

Of course, it has been the policy of every American administration at least since Carter that in negotiations between Israel and its neighbors we act as an impartial mediator. As usual, there was no real controversy, just a bunch of blustering legislators.

"Kerry is as guilty as anyone. My favorite was his mock-outraged cry of "what were you thinking?" after Dean said that Osama Bin Laden should be tried if caught."

Is this an implication that Kerry would want bin Laden executed without a trial? What's the point here?

No, that's exactly the point. Obviously, anyone who was really the president would have to accord Osama Bin Laden a trial. But when Dean actually said that, Kerry and all the others (except Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton) railed against it, suggesting that they would, in fact, summarily execute Bin Laden. They made a political judgment that Americans want a tough commander in chief who would just shoot OBL, while Dean quite rightly said (and I quote): "As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law."

This is the kind of distortion Kerry does all the time. For example, his bluster that Dean has a "secret tax code" is a reference to Dean's statement that he would deal with the issue of improving tax fairness after he had repealed the Bush Tax Cuts and gotten the budget back closer to balance. Only then could he codify a realistic tax plan. (You can tell he has actually DONE this before, unlike any of the others.) Dean says he does have tax advisors who are working on the general principles, but that it is too early to make rash promises. Kerry spins that to mean that Dean has a sinister plan but is keeping it secret.

The reference to the Enron ad is more complex. Dean made an ad criticizing Bush and Cheney's ties to Enron. Kerry calls it ironic because of his own baseless (but not scurrilous) attack on Dean: that Dean had secret dealings with Enron himself.

In fact, Dean created policies while governor of Vermont that encouraged large corporations to set up captive insurance subsidiaries in Vermont rather than offshore. In this way, he collected a lot of taxes from them that otherwise would have gone unpaid, and so did the Feds. Kerry has tried to spin this as a "tax break" to these companies by comparing the taxes paid in Vermont to those that would have been paid in the corporations' home states. That's a red herring because the captive insurance company would never have been in the corporation's home state, it would have been tax free in the Cayman islands. So Kerry claims that Dean gave "tax breaks" to these companies when actually he collected millions more from them in taxes.

One of these companies was Enron. So Kerry claims it is "ironic" that Dean would criticize Bush's dealings with Enron.

etc, etc. It's all a bunch of bull, spouted by Kerry.

Okay, that reference to "bull," being short for "bullshit," came close to being scurrilous :-)

As to your final question, I have no particular investment in Dean beyond maybe 200 bucks I've donated to his campaign. I've just been paying attention to this race for a while, and seen as many of the candidates in person as I could. I work in a low job security field (I'm a folklorist) and worry particularly about health coverage if I should be laid off. Kerry's plan does not deal realistically with this issue in my estimation, passing the burden on to the States in what looks like a potentially unfunded mandate (he proposes to "swap" children's coverage with the states for coverage of adults, but provides no figures as to whether these costs would be equivalent. If they're not, it's an unfunded mandate to the States). The candidates pushing for a single-payer system almost certainly won't get it past congress.

That leaves Dean's system, by far the most practical, and the only one that has ever been tried anywhere. That's one of the things that first convinced me.

Also, my wife is from Vermont and has known the Governor's record for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:41 PM

Frank, you're the one engaged in "scurrilous attacks" (but see the bottom of this post). But at least you admit that I have the facts, and that you can't dispute them. I see that as progress :-)

So here are Frank's latest baseless attacks revealed:

I stand by my conclusion that negative facts without evidence are
spin and scurrilous attacks. This was in response to the negative push-calling that Kerry was accused of.

I did not accuse Kerry. Read the post. I reported that these push-polls and night calls occurred (which I know from firsthand accounts of residents in Iowa and NH). I then clearly stated that there was no proof they were committed by Kerry's people, and then laid out a case why I (and Joe Trippi) think they were committed ny Kerry's people. This is not a case where I claimed there was proof. I said there was no proof, but a lot of evidence.

In the same way, there is no proof, but a lot of evidence, that Bush misled the American people about going to war. That is a claim that Kerry makes.

So you can take your pick: either (1) I engage in scurrilous attacks and so does Kerry, in which case how is he so superior? Or (2) both Kerry and I make decisions based on evidence and present those decisions for what they are. You can't have it both ways; if you insist on complete smoking-gun proof for everything, you'll never be able to make a political decision.

So I respect your decision that the evidence in this case does not convince you that Kerry is guilty. It convinces me. But I strongly reject the notion that it was scurrilous (once again, see the bottom of this post), or even an attack.

Here are some more examples of what you would call "scurrilous attacks," coming from your own post:

Dean claims that he was the only one who made the crucial issue decisions to change the Democratic party and has ignored Dennis Kucinich's contributions.

Not true. As above, with the "why didn't he say that?" comment, you are revealing that you watch the sound bites but not the interviews or debates. Dean has often pointed out Kucinich's contributions, and has done so particularly scrupulously lately. At one point Dean was saying he was the only "major candidate" who opposed the war in Iraq. This pissed Dennis Kucinich off, because he was not being considered a "major candidate." DK took issue with Dean, and Dean has since been very careful to include Kucinich every time. At the last debate, for example, he said "All the congressional candidates, except for Dennis, supported the war."


"Don't know how Dean did as governor in Vermont because his records were sealed by him until after the election. That's not a good sign for an open presidency."

You're wrong here on every count, Frank. First of all, the majority of Dean's records are not sealed at all and never were. Second, those that are sealed were sealed until after the election by Vermont law, not by Dean. Third, the term "records" is a misleadingly broad one, created by the spin doctors to make Dean look guilty. We're talking about correspondence, notes, memos, and other items that would in any other environment be considered private; we are NOT talking about policy decisions, bills, positions, political appointments, etc. All those things are public by nature.

As you may know, most state governments seal some of these "records" for a period, and Dean's would have been sealed for six years (until well after the election) by the normal procedures of Vermont law. The media-created "controversy," which you seem to have fallen for, is about the fact that Dean extended the seal for an extra four years.

The reasons for records being sealed are many. Primary among them are privacy concerns of correspondents. In this case, Dean signed some very controversial legislation, the first bill in the whole country providing equal civil rights for gay people. When he did that, he received a torrent of thank-you mail from gay Americans, from all over the country, some of whom were not "out" and therefore asked for confidentiality. If he simply released all his records, those people would be publicly "outed."

There are other privacy concerns as well. Dean judged that ten years would protect these people better than six.

Now, the other candidates have insisted that Dean make more of his correspondence public. He is perfectly willing to do so, as long as none of these people who need confidentiality are compromised. Someone therefore has to make individual judgments about each document, looking at each one and deciding if it represents a legitimate privacy issue. Dean obviously cannot do this himself or pay someone to do it, or (very rightly) no-one would trust the results. So what is his best option? Release them to an impartial judge.

And guess what? Dean has long since released all of his records to the Vermont administration, who either have already or will select a judge, and the judge will decide what items become public. Dean has no further control over this, as it is in the hands of the administration in Vermont to assign judges to individual cases. The administration is Republican, by the way, so no one can cry that Dean turned this over to his cronies.

So the documents that are supposedly "sealed"--which were considerably less than half his records anyway, and mostly consist of correspondence--are actually in the hands of a Republican-appointed judge of the Vermont court, which is deciding which items can be released.

Tell me, Frank, what would you have done differently?

Finally, I've been using the term "scurrilous" in fun to describe your own baseless and ill-informed attacks, because you used it in a post long ago above. But I don't think you know what the word scurrilous means.

It means abuse characterized by coarseness or indecency of language.

So the only person in this race who has said anything scurrilous was John Kerry, in the infamous Rolling Stone interview where said:

"Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did?
I don't think anybody did."

But Kerry's wrong on that. Dean certainly expected it. And, as you rightly point out, so did Kucinich. That's why they had the foresight to oppose the war, unlike Senator Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:12 PM

Nerd, about Kerry's statement:

"Kerry is as guilty as anyone. My favorite was his mock-outraged cry of "what were you thinking?" after Dean said that Osama Bin Laden should be tried if caught."

Is this an implication that Kerry would want bin Laden executed without a trial? What's the point here?

And these other quotes.

"We knew Dean had secret files and a secret energy task force â€" now he has a secret tax plan?"

What is his tax plan? Why isn't his files open as governor of Vermont?

"Dean TV Ad on Enron...Isn't it ironic?"

I don't remember what this was. What's Dean's role in this? Did he make an ad for Enron?

"Dean Flip-Flops on Tax Cuts"

What is Dean's plan for tax cuts?

"Dean Flubs Another Foreign Policy Question, This Time on Israel."

What is Dean's position on Israel? I understand from a statement he made that he supports AIPAC. What was the foreign policy question?

These quotes out of context can be taken to mean criticism of issues not character. Of course in fairness, Dean's assertion that Kerry is influenced by lobbyists could also be taken to impugn Kerry's objective decision making process and this borders on ad hominem in this light.

Aside from partisan bickering, it would be interesting Nerd to know what your investment is in Dean? I would assume that you are a donor to his campaign. Is Dean above and beyond any reproach? A perfect politician? (Oxymoron, IMHO).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:34 PM

Nerd,   you seem to have a lot of facts. I can't dispute all of them.

I still won't vote for Dean and will vote for Kerry because I think he has what it takes to beat Bush and I don't think Dean does. So, here we go again. The lead Democrats are attacking each other and and name calling hides the issues. But is isn't just about issues. It's about style and whether you really think you can trust the candidate.

Dean claims that he was the only one who made the crucial issue decisions to change the Democratic party and has ignored Dennis Kucinich's contributions. As to the clean campaign, the jury is out on that one. We'll see. There are rules to the game and apparently lobbying is one of them. But a lot of that has to do with degree.I infer from your statements that Clinton and Kerry are responsive to big lobbying interests equal to Bush. I don't think they are as big as Bush's connections.

As you have pointed out, Nerd, they are all politicians and none of them are saints. But my contention is this, in order to be president of the United States, you have to play in such as way that someone is going to cry "foul". In short, you have to be a bit of an SOB as part of the job description.

I think Kerry will try to do something about the huge lobbying interests that now control our country. He offered some solutions such as a waiting period before government officials become lobbyists and some kind of regulatory agency. He also stated that he doesn't want your vote if you believe he will be influenced by lobbyists when he gets into office. You can believe him or not. You can also believe Dean or not.

Don't know how Dean did as governor in Vermont because his records were sealed by him until after the election. That's not a good sign for an open presidency.

I stand by my conclusion that negative facts without evidence are spin and scurrilous attacks. This was in response to the negative push-calling that Kerry was accused of.

We'll see if the DNC gets behind Dean. If not, maybe he should run as an independent. Of course if he does this, Bush will probably get in.

In the meantime, it's interesting to watch how the Democrats again shoot themselves in the foot with name-calling, heated passions and disappointments. Anger has fueled this campaign and instead of supporting one another and giving credit where it's due, it's epithet and accusations that are the rule.

Has anyone checked the Annenberg Foundation for non-partisan fact checks on the candidates? How impartial are they?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:32 AM

Kerry nails New Hampshire , does he? We:ll, Blair screws Kent, Hampshire and our fishing industy!!
What is he like?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 07:58 AM

To paraphrase Harry Truman on Richard Nixon:

"John Kerry is a lying son of a bitch!!"

Talk about Slick Willie? Please.

(Still preparing to hold nose & vote for The Weasel)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 06:58 PM

Right now, it takes some
kind of money to make it happen as Dean well knows since he
has raised a considerable amount.

Yes, and he's raised it from me and people like me, 88 dollars at a time. I am Dean's special interest, not the telecom industry.

Dean may carp at Kerry but in the end, in order to succeed,
he will have to do the same thing that Kerry does.

As I have said above, even the pundits who think Dean will lose admit that he has tapped a vast new source of clean funds, with no strings attached as with the special interests. Dean is thus the only candidate who will NOT have to do what John Kerry does.

My contention is for candidates to give up the attacks and stay
with the issues (...) Let Dean save his negative campaigning for Bush.

Kerry is as guilty as anyone. My favorite was his mock-outraged cry of "what were you thinking?" after Dean said that Osama Bin Laden should be tried if caught.

This was not controversial, we have laws that say that EVERYONE must be tried. We even tried the Nazis at Nuremburg. But when Kerry saw an opening, he jumped at it, trying to make Dean's position look bizarre.

Or how about these press release titles from Kerry's site:

"We knew Dean had secret files and a secret energy task force â€" now he has a secret tax plan?"

"Dean TV Ad on Enron...Isn't it ironic?"

"Dean Flip-Flops on Tax Cuts"

"Dean Flubs Another Foreign Policy Question, This Time on Israel."

Maybe Kerry should save HIS negative campaigning for Bush.


v

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 06:37 PM

(more responses)

What is the source for this
article? It sounds like an op-ed page to me.

Like I said above, Wash Post, first or second page (it was on the front page of their website yesterday) and not Op-Ed.

Fifteen years is
a long time. Gotta' pay for those elections. Dean will have
to come to terms with that and that's why Tom Neel is on board.

Sorry to hear you think selling out is inevitable. But you're wrong about ROY (not Tom) Neel. In fact, you're engaging in what is, by your definition, "spin" and "a scurrilous attack."

Neel is not there to raise funds, which was never his thing. He is there to engage the Democratic party operatives in the upcoming states. Trippi's failing was not fundraising, but a failure to work with party stalwarts in Iowa. I explained this above.

"But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds."

As much as Bush? Anyone who believes that I gotta' bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Why? Clinton certainly did it, and Senator Kerry is a pure product of Clinton-Era Washington. I was accused above of thinking Dean was above reproach. This is not really true of me, though I confess I like him. But to suggest that No-one could possibly go for special interest money like Bush, after the spectacle of Clinton, is rich!


Nothing wrong with this in my estimation.

Interesting. Before you said my suggestion of quid pro quo was a scurrilous attack. Now you say it's accurate but there's nothing wrong with it.

As I see it, there's no candidate that can get by on public funding today.

We're not talking about public funding. We're talking about grassroots funding. Dean has already proved he can out-fundraise Kerry's special interest strategy. He raised more than 40 million for the primary, while there were eight other candidates asking for a piece of the Democratic money pie. I believe he can raise 200 million if he is the sole candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 06:34 PM

Oops! I messed up the italics in my last post. I'll repeat the last part of it, corrected, here:

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

What is the source of this assertion?

Washington Post, yesterday. I think it was on the front page, but it might have been a second page story. Definitely
not op-ed.

I don't give much credibility to Newsweek articles.

Okay. That's your choice. I think the article raises important questions.

Actually, Dean has more money in his coffers than Kerry at this
time. Let's see where he got it and how he'll spend it.

He got it mainly from hundreds of thousands of Americans like me. I am glad to see you acknowedge that Dean does have more money, though. So many of the media outlets are claiming he's washed up because his fundraising will dry up soon. But the great thing about being funded by folks like me giving twenty or fifty bucks at a time is that we aren't swayed to give money only to the front-runner in the hopes of gettng something out of it. We just want our guy to win, and we trust him to take it from there.

I'll address YOUR next post in MY next post!

g

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 06:13 PM

If you don't vote for bills, it means
you don't like them.

AHA (As Daffy Duck would say)! Preposition Trouble! It's not that he didn't vote FOR bills, it's that he didn't vote ON bills.

If you like a bill, you vote FOR it. If you don't like a bill, you vote AGAINST it. If you don't vote on a bill at all, it can mean any of a number of things. In Kerry's case, it mostly means he's out on the campaign trail instead of doing his job as a Senator. Note that the second, third and fourth all-time vote-missers are also presidential candidates.

(Zell, of course, is a special case: as the rightmost Democrat in Congress, he frequently has to navigate the schism between his true feelings [right of president Bush] and his party affiliation, which probably accounts for his many missed votes. Or maybe he's just lazy.)

The difference between the money Kerry has raised from the telecommunications industry and the amount that Bush
has access to
his hardly comparable. Bush can outspend all of the money raised byt the Democratic contenders combined.

This is not really true; if the Democrats pooled all their money instead of running primaries, and selected a candidate at random, then let HIM raise money, they would most likely come out with more money than pres. Bush. But I understand the spirit of what you're saying: Bush will be able to outspend any Democrat. This is true, but it's not the point of the special-interest money concerns. The point is that, once elected, Kerry will owe the special interests consideration for their money.

You say,

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

The is second-guessing what the voters feel will be the important
issues of the campaign.

Granted, but I think that Iraq, Patriot Act and Education Funding will be huge issues. Remember, I am one of "the voters."

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

Prove it. Maybe we should get Kenneth Starr to investigate this. :)

No need. Bill Weld brought them up in the 1996 Senate race, and almost took out an incumbent Democratic senator in Massachusetts!

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

What is the source of this assertion?

Washington Post, yesterday. I think it was on the front page, but it might have been a second page story. Definitely not op-ed.


I don't give much credibility to Newsweek articles.

Okay. That's your choice. I think the article raises important questions.

Actually, Dean has more money in his coffers than Kerry at this
time. Let's see where he got it and how he'll spend it.

He got it mainly from hundreds of thousands of Americans like me. I am glad to see you acknowedge that Dean does have more money, though. So many of the media outlets are claiming he's washed up because his fundraising will dry up soon. But the great thing about being funded by folks like me giving twenty or fifty bucks at a time is that we aren't swayed to give money only to the front-runner in the hopes of gettng something out of it. We just want our guy to win, and we trust him to take it from there.

I'll address YOUR next post in MY next post!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM

Frank:

I respond to your points one by one:

No the media had nothing to do with it. Only my personal observations of the style of campaigning.

How have you seen the style of campaigning? I imagine it's through the media. Unless you've been touring with both candidates. If you have, I apologize for the inference.

As to the lobbying issue, both Dean and Kerry have received
corporate money. Lobbyists money. But not a lot compared
to the Bush coffers.

Every candidate has received lobbyist's money, because lobbyists are people too, and they give money. But I repeat, according to the Washington Post AND the New York Times, Kerry has received more special interest money than any other Senator for the last fifteen years. Much of this money comes from corporations and lobbyists whose industries he regulates! Granted, it's less than Bush has, but it's a lot, not a little.

Meanwhile, Dean has received VERY LITTLE money from Lobbyists, and his average campaign donation is about a hundred dollars. He has collected his money from vast numbers of individual Americans. Even people who write him off as a loss at this point, Like CNN's Mark Shields, admit that he has showed the Democratic party a MUCH CLEANER method of fundraising. Spin it however you want, Dean is much less beholden to corporate special interests than Kerry.

Is it a "scurrilous attack" to suggest there may have been some quid pro quo?"

Yes, because without proof it is spin.

Then it is spin that Bush misled the American People, because there might still be WMD in Iraq. And if there aren't, then Maybe Bush was himself misled by the evil CIA. It is Spin that Osama Bin Laden is behind 9/11, and it is spin that the Supreme Court backed Bush and installed him as president on ideological grounds. It is spin that Al Gore won the popular vote, since the recount never occurred and many absentee ballots were not counted.

Sometimes, there is no proof. Sometimes, there will never be proof. There is, however, a lot of evidence. Kerry's special interest money went disproportionately to the states he would need to win to get the presidential nomination. The team at Newsweek think this means quid pro quo, and so do I. There is at least as much evidence for this as for the proposition that Bush purposely misled Americans on the war. I believe that one, too.

This is very telling. It shows that Dean is not able to
mobilize the Democratic Party to his behalf. Now why is that?

It's been common knowledge from the beginning that the Democratic Party as a whole did not want Dean to win the nomination. There are many reasons. Partly, it's because he DIDN'T do things like Kerry did, in setting up a shady soft-money fundraising factory and funneling the proceeds to well-connected party insiders. Partly it's just because the party is controlled by the right-leaning faction that Clinton brought into power. But it's not the message. Dean's message has been adopted by all the leading candidates.

You also say that the DNC says,

"whoa, don't do that! You'll win the election for Bush!" I am sick of that kind of self-serving hypocrisy.

It was true the last time when Nader helped to split the votes in 2000. It's not self-serving to want to rid the country of
Bush.

My point is, why wasn't it true three weeks ago when Dean was the front-runner and Kerry, Gephardt et al were attacking him? At that time, the DNC was perfectly happy to let the attacks go on. Dean even publicly challenged Terry Mac to step in. He did not. Therefore, it is hypocritical, a mere three weeks later, to say that any attacks on the front runner are disloyal.

The same thing would happen with Dean. They'll go after him tooth and nail and question his ethics and dig up the same spin on him.

They've been trying for a year. The best they came up with was "he's angry, and he said the Caucus process was arcane." There is no dirt to find on his marriage, family life, etc., and his record is much better known at this point than any of the other candidates'. He has been highly exposed for a long time, and nothing has yet come out.

Dean is at present outspending Kerry on his campaign.

Now who's engaging in unsupported spin? The rumors were that Dean had a meager 5 million left, but when the figures were released it was nine million, with a million and a half more raised in the last week. Dean has pulled his ads in the Feb 3rd states to stop spending and concentrate on later races with more delegates at stake. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely he is outspending Kerry at this point. So where's your evidence for this factoid?

The inference was that people who fly the confederate flag should
vote for Dean because he was trying
to woo the stereotypical idea of the white Southerner.

That is YOUR inference. It was John Edwards's inference, too.   Al Sharpton's inference was that it was a racial slur against blacks. Sorry, I put you in the Sharpton camp instead of the Edwards camp.

To respond to your concerns, then: what sense would it make to appeal to people while using a negative stereotype of them? Would he say "those lazy Mexicans ought get off their siesta-taking asses and vote for us," or "those stupid, inbred hillbillies in West Virginia ought to be voting for us?" No, that would make no sense, because he would offend the people he was trying to appeal to!

He was in fact saying something far more simple: exactly what he said. That was, once again, that white southerners with the Confederate Flag on their trucks ought to be voting for us.

Does anyone deny that there ARE such people? If so, I beg to differ. I've seen them. And since those people presumably KNOW they have the confederate flag on their trucks, they would not be offended by the description. So given that they exist, and that Dean's appeal makes most sense if you assume he is really talking to them, why does Dean have to be engaging a stereotype when he mentions them? THIS, my friend, is spin.

" 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,"

Then why didn't he say that?

He DID say that! Once again, I have to ask if you really watched that debate? He said that blacks and whites have the same needs and the same issues in states like SC, that they all need healthcare, jobs and education. On that basis, white southerners with the Confederate Flag on their trucks ought to be voting Democratic. At present, he said, they are voting against their own interests.

What happened next? The media picked up on the "confederate flag" remark and spun it one way ("Dean's Loose Lips,") Sharpton spun it another way ("Dean's insensitivity to blacks,") and Edwards a third way (Dean's stereotyping of southerners).

In fact, Dean was speaking about a very specific group of people, people whose interests would be served by voting Democratic, but who vote Republican anyway, because they have been brainwashed by the Republican "Southern Strategy" into fearing black people. The meaning was pretty clear in its immediate context (Carol Moseley Braun knew exactly what he meant, and said so), and completely clear in the full context of Dean's very public remarks on race. The media, whose job SHOULD be to put such things in context so we have a better chance of understanding them, instead took it out of its context, so it was hard to understand.

Another reason, BTW, why he didn't say evrything I've said above is that in the context of a debate you have limited time.

Maybe you'll have added your "more later" by the time I post this. I look forward to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 05:20 PM

Hi Nerd,

Enjoy our discussion. I think it's an important one and brings
in some of the needed views.

You say,

"Now, Frank, I know you don't trust the media except when you already agree with them,"

To this I reply, I pride myself on being able to draw my own
conclusions on the information I receive. I believe that this
is being a responsible informed citizen.

Many of the "factoids" that are thrown about so casually these
days need to be investigated in more depth. This is why I eschew information coming from the standard media sources and will often
go to alternative or underground sources for news.

I think that Dean says a lot of things that make sense and I have no desire to belittle them.

These ideas are not original from Dean. They've been around for a long time. Again Kucinich has been consistent from the beginning.

As well as Sharpton and Mosely Braun.


Kerry has derived a lot of his ideas not just from Dean
but from listening to voters. In this, I find him responsive.

But regarding the big money, it's the RNC that has the corner on the market. It's difficult to discuss
things that are really not known and sound like spin. Kennedy and Johnson both had huge lobbying interests but not the size of Bush.

It's a matter of degree.

But here's the great American political dilemma. The very
tools that get a president elected have not much bearing in
how he/she will govern in office. Right now, it takes some
kind of money to make it happen as Dean well knows since he
has raised a considerable amount.

Dean may carp at Kerry but in the end, in order to succeed,
he will have to do the same thing that Kerry does. In the meantime, all the attacks and back-biting will not get a Democrat elected
or Bush out.

My contention is for candidates to give up the attacks and stay
with the issues. Differences can be stated without the implications of "hypocrisy" or "moral high-ground". The nature of politics
today in the US is that no one has the right to a moral high
ground. It's a dirty business and needs reform. One way is to
go after the huge lobbyists that control our democracy today.
Let Dean save his negative campaigning for Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM

Frank... as Kerry 'shortstop', you are pretty good at stoping those grounders that nerd slaps your way... but your throws to first are a bit late... It seems like you ought to go to bat for Kerry rather than simply field hard hit balls...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Guest of 12:00 PM
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 05:11 PM

Nerd and Frank Hamilton,

Good debate, point and counterpoints. Keep it up, I might learn something.

Nerd, I thought you might hold your nose, like many of us may need to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM

From the Washington Post.

"Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show."

What is the source for this
article? It sounds like an op-ed page to me. Fifteen years is
a long time. Gotta' pay for those elections. Dean will have
to come to terms with that and that's why Tom Neel is on board.

"But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds."

As much as Bush? Anyone who believes that I gotta' bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

"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."

Nothing wrong with this in my estimation. Both Dean and Kerry
didn't take PACs. Yes, in the real world of politics, you do
need money to take on the "Bush money machine". Dean will find that out. But this doesn't mean that Kerry won't take on some of
the huge conglomerates that fund, such as Enron, Halliburton,
the NRA, Wall Street and other huge sources of lobby money.

As I see it, there's no candidate that can get by on public funding today. I don't like it but that's the reality. But again,
the black and white issue that the Radical Right always like
to raise has nuance and other contexts. It's a matter of degree.
I've heard John Kerry speak and he's no George Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:39 PM

Nerd, you bring up quite a bit of information that takes time
to respond to.

Here's one.

"Kerry ranks second in the Senate in all-time missed vote percentage. Only Zell Miller of Georgia has skipped a greater proportion of his votes than Kerry. Edwards is third and Lieberman is fourth. For this they get taxpayer money?"

I think it's legitimate for a senator or congressman to vote on
the basis of what they feel is important and not for every bill
that comes down the pike. If you don't vote for bills, it means
you don't like them. What's wrong with that? I hope that Kerry and others don't vote for some of the bills that have been railroaded
through congress by a non-bipartisan political Right.

AS to the article itself:

The difference between the money Kerry has raised from the telecommunications industry and the amount that Bush has access to
his hardly comparable. Bush can outspend all of the money raised byt the Democratic contenders combined.

You say,

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

The is second-guessing what the voters feel will be the important
issues of the campaign.

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

Prove it. Maybe we should get Kenneth Starr to investigate this. :)

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

What is the source of this assertion?

"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:"

I don't give much credibility to Newsweek articles. No, he is not
bought and paid for. This assertion is again spin.

I think we are getting a political spin based on factoids that
are manufactured by such organs as Newsweek. A lot of these assertions have to be given careful consideration as to their
validity in an election year where spin is more prevalent than
actual fact.

Actually, Dean has more money in his coffers than Kerry at this
time. Let's see where he got it and how he'll spend it.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:10 PM

Hi Nerd,

Again, more inferences without factual basis.

" You believe that Kerry has the air of a statesman and Dean does not. Why? the media has told you so."

No the media had nothing to do with it. Only my personal observations of the style of campaigning.

As to the lobbying issue, both Dean and Kerry have received
corporate money. Lobbyists money. But not a lot compared
to the Bush coffers.

"Is it a "scurrilous attack" to suggest there may have been some quid pro quo?"

Yes, because without proof it is spin. The question I have is
what good does it do to attack Kerry on this level? It makes
the Democratic Party look so petty and gives the Bush Party
credibility. The RNC people apparently don't do this to each other.

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

Not necessarilly your attacks on Kerry. If they in fact can be
substantiated by fact rather than invective, then they may be
useful in formulating an unbiased opinion. But as long as they
are tempered by the anger that has been fueled by this campaign,
then they are not good for the Democratic Party.

"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."


This is very telling. It shows that Dean is not able to
mobilize the Democratic Party to his behalf. Now why is that?

You also say that the DNC says,

"whoa, don't do that! You'll win the election for Bush!" I am sick of that kind of self-serving hypocrisy.

It was true the last time when Nader helped to split the votes in 2000. It's not self-serving to want to rid the country of Bush.
As to Dean, if he can garner support on his merits, the more power to him. I agree with a lot of what he says but I don't like his
style of campaigning. I don't agree with some of what Kerry
says such as supporting the Resolution and I don't think the world is safer because Saddam was caught.

You say,

"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."

The same thing would happen with Dean. They'll go after him tooth and nail and question his ethics and dig up the same spin on him.


"My attacks are insignificant."

There are a lot of Deaniacs out there who think their candidate
walks on water. It's always that way in a political campaign.
Every candidate has flaws. With Dean, it might be style and
maybe he is responsive to some corporate lobbying groups as well.

With Clark, he is a military guy. Joe Lieberman is Bush-lite.
Edwards is young, inexperienced and has some good things to say
about America divided. Dennis is the one I agree with in principle but I know that his chances of beating Bush are negligible. I
even like what Al Sharpton says. Same problem.

Your attacks on Kerry will not get Dean elected so what good
are they?

The only way Dean has any chance is to get off the yapping-dog-at-the-heels approach and hone his message. If he can get it across,
great. But so far, it hasn't really happened.

I believe that Kerry is not responsive to the large lobbying interests that Bush is and doesn't have the corporate backing
that the RNC has.

Dean is at present outspending Kerry on his campaign.

You bring up the "confederate flag" issue.

"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?"

The inference was that people who fly the confederate flag should
vote for Dean because he was trying
to woo the stereotypical idea of the white Southerner. The confederate flag is the same as the Nazi symbol to African-Americans.
Jesse Jackson exonerated Dean on this but to bring that symbol
into the campaign was risky for him. It made it seem like he
was on the side of the "yahoo brigade" and many Southernors took offense at this "Northern" stereotyping.


"Does it make sense to say that the Democrats don't want those people's votes? That they'd rather lose?"

These people are being appealed to on the basis of their support
for the confederate flag.

You say,

" 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,"

Then why didn't he say that? Could it be that he thought that it wouldn't play? This statement was not a way to unite Blacks and Whites.

More to follow.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 03:20 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 03:08 PM

I will concede you this Frank;... there does seem to be a tendency of late... The high moral ground of the Dean campaign just looses it's relevence when Dean's supporters verge on becoming petty snipers... Provocation? Yep! that's how the powers that be make good people look bad... and then they spin the senseless political spectators until they mutter propaganda all the way to the voting booth... Unless... We stop being provoked... And stick to the facts, and the issues. And may the best man (person) win!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 02:08 PM

Hi Nerd,....more.

You say that Zogby said, "the people of New Hampshire have decided to select a possible president rather than send an angry message."

I don't see anything wrong with this. This election year
has been fueled by anger and although it galvanizes in the
short run, in the long run it dissapates into smoldering
frustration and solves nothing.

You say,

"So as you can see, there are many questions about the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Dean has essentially conceded the Feb 3rd states in an attempt to take Feb 7, 17, and March 3 states which have a much greater delegate count. Remember what I said above: Dean is STILL the front runner in the delegate count, and that's what matters in the end."

Maybe or maybe not. There are many conspiracy theories about why
candidates win or lose but unless there is proof that is
conclusive, they remain just that.

BTW, "Momentum" as a concept pisses me off, because it is another way........

I believe we need Democrats to stop being pissed off at each other.
Again, it's shooting ourselves in the foot.

" I think a pollster should be strictly impartial, but that's not the way it works with the Washington Political and Media elite."

And it hasn't been that way for a long time. Polls....well are like statistics and you remember what Disraeli had to say about that...
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics." I add polls.

I agree with you however that the conglomerates have taken over
the news media. I watch BBC news and listen to Pacifica news
on NPR. The rest I take with a huge grain of salt.


I agree also with you about the meddling of focus groups and polls.
I think that the man that the people want is the way to go.

Well instead of candidates yapping at each other's heels like dogs,
it would be better for them to forget manufactured umbrances
and concentrate on the messages they are delivering. And spare
us the technical running of a campaign.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 01:46 PM

Well, Nerd, you have done a lot of homework. I appreciate the
effort you have made in trying to make your case. You appear to be
very knowledgeable.

You say,

"Frank, you're looking at Kerry through Rose-Colored Glasses."

I believe they are more like high powered binoculars.

I didn't hear the attacks that you attribute to him. Please offer
proof of ad hominem attacks. Also, proof of the dirty tricks that his
supposed operatives conducted. It's my experience that if Kerry
had known about any dirty tricks he would have fired his operatives.
I suspect dirty tricks of being across the board in a political
year.   It could have been that Kerry callers may have been
polluted with those outside the Kerry camp. Anyway, show proof.

You say,
"(NB: Although there is no proof it was Kerry who did this, no one else had much to gain in New Hampshire, and the Republicans do not have the pollsters on the ground to identify who is a Dean "one." Because of this Joe Trippi, Dean's erstwhile manager, is sure it was Kerry)."

First of all, without proof, this becomes a scurrilous attack.
It's this kind of thing that will ensure Bush's election. The Right wing has to be laughing at us as Progressives for such back-biting.
If Joe Trippi is so credible, why was he replaced by Gore operative
Tom Neel?

Again, you say,

"If I have a Hollywood insider working for me, does that make me a Hollywood insider?"

The answser is yes.   A true outsider doesn't compromise.

The outsider insider thing is still a red-herring. Kerry is not
being represented by special interests of the wealthy. They
want Bush.

By the way, you are right about Kerry's comments regarding
raising taxes for the middle class and he was right, also.
That's what Dean and Gephardt's plan would do.


Kerry's vision is consistent. He is a Vietnam vet and sees
the futility of war. He also is a military guy and with improper
intelligence, made his decision to support the Resolution.
He admitted publicly that it was a big mistake and cost him.
His vision is to come to terms with the buying of democracy by
the lobbying interests and corporations. He would roll back
the tax cut but thoughtfully, not in a reactionary way.
He is a statesman and would elicit the help of the UN and our
former allies that have been alienated by Bush. He supports gun control and will take on the NRA. He said so. I believe his
approach is even-handed and thoughtful and not based on angry
reactions. He sees that as a congressman, there is a high-context to every issue and the black and white approach to them does not
serve the public.


What if Kerry does echo some of Dean's position? Is that so bad?
Dennis Kucinich had Dean's position before Dean did. So what?

Kerry has sharpened his image considerably. And he has made
his position very clear about taking on the special interests.
"Bring 'em on!"

Kerry acts like a stateman.   He is thoughtful and not given
to public outbursts. Considering the pressure he is under, I
believe he acts well under the line of fire.

Kerry is probably the only hope for the Democratic party. He
doesn't rail or concentrate on the technical mechanics of winning
His public record is available and not sealed. His message is
focused and clear. "Special interests and lobbies...bring 'em on!"

"Finally, here's an article from ABCnews.com's The Note:"

Does anyone really trust ABC, CBS or NBC news? The article cited
is spin.

Some of the criticisms of Kerry may be gaffs. Lord knows, all
the candidates have made some.

Kerry's legislative accomplishments are not clear. He has stated
that he voted for some bills that he didn't have his name on
but that he saw what he thought were good things in them although
again, bills are not ever perfectly clear themselves or "competently
written".

North Korea and South Korea is an honest slip. Doesn't mean
anything because people know what he meant. Nit-picking by
yapping dogs at the heels.

I don't see evidence that Kerry has limited any press availabilites
but if he has it's because the way this press treats any candidate
is like a viper waiting to strike.

Dean's message didn't originate with him. Kucinich has been
consistent for just as long a time as had Sharpton and most
African-American political observers.

Whether Dean uses the confederate flag or Hollings mentioned
"Chinaman"...this kind of thing invariably happens to all candidates who are in a front runner position. Jesse Jackson's famous
"Hymietown" is another case in point. In the pressure of
an election, someone is bound to step in it.

As I recall both Dean and Kerry have not taken PAC money from the government.

In the long run, endorsements may or may not matter depending
upon who it is. If Bush were to endorse Dean, (which he may be serriptiously doing as long as we are speculating..and would
be in his interest to do it...see what I mean about creating
negative scenarios).........

What does "apparently" not showing tax returns mean?

Flipping out at the press is nothing new. They can be obnoxious.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN.....I flip out at them daily.

ABC is engaged in a scandal-mongering campaign by nit-picking
a candidate that is showing increasing power. In other words,
it's business as usual.

I find it hard to accept what the standard news media who is
controlled by corporate conglomerates have anything of value
to say other than who is doing what and where. The spin
is obvious and odious.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 12:00 PM

Nerd-

Quote:
Kerry ranks second in the Senate in all-time missed vote percentage
End Quote.

Thanks. That is a very poor record and was news to me.

Would you still vote for him over Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 11:48 AM

Nerd-

Excellent commentary! You certainly are wired into campaign info. I appreciate your perspective. I haven't been "wired in" since I last worked full-time on a failed U.S. Senate campaign (Tom Andrews vs. Olympia Snowe) back in 1996.

However, the role of the media in this country against insurgent candidates should be a given. Somehow, such candidates have generate their own news and stay on message.

Good luck,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry nails New Hampshire
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 12:09 AM

Charley,

We did talk about the Dean loss a bit on some Iowa Caucus threads. There were several strands to it, one of which was a legitimate failure of the campaign. That was a failure to engage the Democratic Party machinery of Iowa directly. Joe Trippi (Dean's Campaign Manager) thought that the insurgency factor and the grassroots factor would be enough to carry the day. Meanwhile, Kerry hired well-known Democratic Party figures to be his precinct captains. Many of these people were also the local precinct chairs. They mobilized their friends and neighbors while Dean flooded the neighborhoods with canvassing volunteers. Kerry got more people out.

Charley says that "I wouldn't blame his loss on an over zealous media, although they surely played a minor role." But in fact they played a major role. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the trajectory of each candidate directly reflects the media coverage in the two weeks prior to the Caucus. Edwards, who outperformed expectations the most, got 100% positive coverage: no negative network TV coverage at all! Kerry, who outperformed expectations strongly, got 96% positive coverage. And Dean, who performed below expectations, got the worst coverage of all at only 58% positive; 42% of the stories about Dean were negative! This is fascinating, as Dean is the only candidate who has publicly stated that if elected he would limit the size of media conglomerates and regulate them more closely.

There was also a great deal of shady caucus manipulation in Iowa, such as the situation you witnessed if you watched the Dubuque Caucus on Cspan: the Caucus chair was a Kerry supporter, and he controlled everything from where the signs went to where the preference groups met. So while all the business was carried out, everyone was sitting facing Kerry signs, and the other candidates' signs were invisible. Then he split the caucus into preference groups, without ANY of the discussion of issues that is supposed to be the whole point of the caucus. Anytime anyone tried to raise an issue, he said "we're just trying to, you know, move things along here," and would not let a discussion start. He grouped everyone together by candidate and then made them march off to different rooms. He made sure the Kerry people and the Undecideds were right next to each other, then sent off the other groups one by one. By the time the Kerry group left, the undecideds had not been able to talk to anyone but the Kerry folks, but they had had at least fifteen minutes in close proximity to the Kerry group.

These are not exactly "dirty tricks," of course, as they're within the rules of the caucus process, but they're exploiting the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law. More than that, they set up obvious conflicts of interest between a party member's roles as Kerry Supporter and Caucus Chair, which ought not to exist. Still, Trippi's lack of connection to the important, on-the-ground party apparatus is exactly why he was replaced. Nobody will say this officially, but it was his big (and perhaps only) failing, and it's one of Roy Neel's strengths.

The New Hampshire outcome was due almost entirely to the press distorting that clip of Dean's Iowa speech, claiming that he was "unbalanced," or "a lunatic," etc., etc.

Beyond this, there were actual "dirty tricks," including robo-calling as detailed in my post above (calling undecided voters at 2-4AM in New Hampshire, claiming to be from the Dean Campaign; Calling Dean's strongest supporters in Iowa, claiming to be from the Dean Campaign, and misinforming them about the address of the caucus, which is crucial because you can't participate in a caucus if you come too late). There was even dirtier calling, a push-poll, asking if the listener thought it was okay that Dean was raising his children not to believe in Jesus. (The kids are being raised Jewish like their mother).

Nobody can prove whether John Kerry was behind these calls, but it's a pretty safe bet. Nobody else had an interest in hurting Dean in BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire, AND had the organization on the ground to identify Dean's "ones" or strong supporters.

Another thing that has not helped is that John Zogby, the guru who runs the most influential polls, is an open Kerry supporter. On his website a few days before the New Hampshire Primary, when Dean suddenly lost a suspicious number of supporters and Kerry gained the equivalent number, Zogby felt the need to defend the numbers, quite defensively pointing out that "I've never called New Hampshire wrong." His explanation of the sudden change was that it wasn't a defect of the polls but a reflection of the fact that (and I quote) "the people of New Hampshire have decided to select a possible president rather than send an angry message."

But Zogby's being so obviously partisan raises another question: did he raise expectations for Dean early, through falsified or distorted polls, then create a free-fall for Dean and "momentum" for Kerry later, by suddenly correcting his numbers over three days? If he did this, of course, it explains the disappointment of many people like Charley, who thought Dean had "many advantages that a campaign could wish for" going into Iowa. But were those advantages exaggerated by the pollster in order to manufacture the disappointment Charley feels? There's no way to know. I think a pollster should be strictly impartial, but that's not the way it works with the Washington Political and Media elite.

So as you can see, there are many questions about the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Dean has essentially conceded the Feb 3rd states in an attempt to take Feb 7, 17, and March 3 states which have a much greater delegate count. Remember what I said above: Dean is STILL the front runner in the delegate count, and that's what matters in the end.

BTW, "Momentum" as a concept pisses me off, because it is another way the media attempt to control our votes. They love to have the power to create "momentum" for a candidate. If primary results were kept secret until the voting was over everywhere (i.e. no media reportage) people would vote for the candidate they liked best regardless of "momentum." Wouldn't we then get the candidate that most people liked? Wouldn't that be better than getting a candidate handed to us by media-manufactured "momentum?"