BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court

Subject: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:35 PM

One of the reasons people often give for the urgency of a Democratic victory in November is the Supreme Court; if Bush gets to appoint justices, the country will move inexorably to the right, and such decisions as Roe v. Wade will be jeopardized.

Fair enough. But it also bears pointing out that justices need to be approved by the Senate. Thus, a democratic Senate would make it difficult for Bush to appoint hard-right justices, and indeed a Republican senate will make it difficult for a Democratic president to appoint more liberal ones. In fact, the Senate can tie up judicial appointments for years, and the Supreme Court has sometimes had fewer than its full complement of justices for years at a time. So if this becomes a hard-fought battle, which it certainly will, it's equally important that we get the Senate into Democratic hands.

Here's where John Kerry comes in. Massachusetts is a very Democratic state. It is very unlikely that a Republican senator could hope to replace a Democratic one there in an election, especially since Bill Weld tried so hard last time and Kerry squeaked through. But there IS a way for foolish Democrats to just hand over one of the Senate seats from Massachusetts to the Republicans.

That's for us to elect John Kerry president.

If a Senator leaves his seat before his term is up, the governor appoints a replacement to serve the remainder of that term.

Massachusetts currently has a Republican governor, Mitt Romney.

Therefore, putting Kerry in the White House would give one of the most reliably Democratic seats in the Senate to the Republicans.   

If we nominate Kerry, we'll have two options: gain a president but lose a crucial Senate seat, or retain the status quo.

I say: leave our Democratic Senators where they are! Nominate Howard Dean and elect him president!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: LadyJean
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:43 PM

Here I go again, Kerry flip flopped on the war in Iraq. He flip flopped on the Patriot Act. (And he hasn't told us why he did that yet.) He flip flopped on No Child Left Behind. The Bush/Rove slime machine is going to have a field day with that, and they have plenty of money to run negative ads.

The slime machine is now trying to cook up a scandal about Kerry and an intern. I honestly wish they'd focus on the flip flops. But that intern could do more damage, especially if Mrs. Kerry takes offence and takes her money.

That's Pittsburgh money, incidentally, that's bankrolling Kerry, from Mrs. Kerry's first husband, John Heinz. I'm betting the lovely Mrs. Kerry calls Pittsburgh natives "yinzers" a derogatory term used because some of us say yinz as the plural of you. I took around two delegat petitions today for Dean delegates. I keep hoping he'll take New York and California.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Cruiser
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 12:57 AM

You Democrats will never learn. Stand together behind Kerry. He is very imperfect, but you know the alternative. Dean is a disappointment and you loyal supporters should accept that, admit he won't be the candidate, and support Kerry or float Bush to the top again. Kerry as President will have more impact than Kerry as Senator. Democrats don't make it easy for a Republican to consider voting for a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:34 AM

Cruiser,

the time to stand together behind a candidate is when he has clinched the nomination. Until then, you should support the candidate you think will be the best president. For me, that's Dean.

Also, let's not pretend this ritual is just what Democrats do, while Republicans are somehow above it, or too mature, or too realistic. Republicans like to tell themselves that, but it's a load of crap. Remember who first accused Reagan of practicing "Voodoo Economics?" It was George H. W. Bush in the Republican primary. Somehow, the two of them got past it later. The battles between Bush II and McCain in the last primary season were epic; now McCain kisses the royal backside at campaign events.

Both parties have to go through struggle in order to pick the best candidate. Once the candidate is selected, the others will back him, and so will most rank-and-file dems. It ain't that deep, Cruiser.

As to your final point, it's true that Kerry would have more impact as President, though as LadyJean points out, we have no idea what that impact would be. But the main point is, the biggest possible impact would be to leave him where he is and elect ANOTHER Democrat president. That's my plan!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:32 AM

the time to stand together behind a candidate is when he has clinched the nomination. Until then, you should support the candidate you think will be the best president. (Nerd)

Sorry, Nerd, you contributions often are well-thought, but here your position is stupid (sorry: suboptimal) in my eyes with a big potential for self-inflicted damage.

Think back to the last French presidential elections (we have discussed them then at length). The left had more votes altogether after the first voting stage than the right, but the first two candidates came both from the right and the French in the final election had the choice between a right and a far right candidate. The silly left voters had wrongly considered the first stage as a 'beauty contest' and voted according to their hearts for one of the two Trotzkists, for one of the three Green, for a more radical socialist but not for the moderate socialist. They let their heart speak and were deeply disappointed later.

The American primaries determine (this year, not in all years) which Democrat will run against Bush, and nothing else. I see only two possible reasons for your position now:
(1) You do not care whether Bush or Kelly will be president (I don't believe that) or
(2) You think that each Democrat has the same chances against Bush (you may believe that, I can't tell from your posts; but I don't believe it)

The issue at this time is only who of the Democrats will run against Bush. If I would vote in the USA I even at this stage would vote for whom I'd consider the likeliest to win against Bush. I would not let my heart speak instead of my mind.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Frankham
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 09:56 AM

Hi Nerd,

You said,
"As to your final point, it's true that Kerry would have more impact as President, though as LadyJean points out, we have no idea what that impact would be."

We would have the same problem with Dean. Karl Rove is chuckling
at the thought of Dean against Bush.

Kerry is not perfect. But Dean hasn't really been tested as
a viable candidate either. And the more attacks on Kerry, the
less chance Dean has. It shows how he wants to tear the Democratic opposition apart and for what purpose?

He will be defeated in Wisconsin.

As to blaming Kerry for a nomination of a Republican Supreme Court Justice, that "dog won't hunt" either. That's mere speculation
and not evidence.

Clinton wasn't the most perfect person in the
White House either but he was a damn sight better than Bush who is
ruining the country.

Dean is a heavy drag on the Democratic Party right now. At least
Clark and Gephardt had the sense to throw their support to
Kerry.

Kucinich was and is my first choice but I am not naive enough to
think he has a chance. The American people are not ready for him
yet. He is advanced in his thinking. Right now, there is a
focus on "national security" which I think is another scare tactic and Kerry can deal with that. As far as flip-flopping on issues,
it's politics whether Deaniacs can accept that or not, it is reality that political decisions are not made by sanctimonious judgments.
The most important focus for the country and for the Democrats right now is to get rid of George Bush, not on a failed candidacy of
Howard Dean.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 12:27 PM

Nerd, there's an old folk saying:   "Don't pee in the soup. That may be all you'll have to eat for supper."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 12:59 PM

Well, one could always vote for Ralph Nader. I read in the paper the other day that it is almost a sure bet that he is going to run on a third party ticket (not the Green Party this time.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:27 PM

Wolfgang et al,

I actually believe Dean has a much better chance against Bush, which is another reason I'd like to nominate him. Frank and I got into an acrimonious exchange about this on another thread, which is why we let that thread die. I think Kerry will lose badly; Frank doesn't agree.

Frank above expressed the idea that Karl Rove (Bush's campaign advisor and dirty tricks guru) wants Dean to be the nominee, because someone once reported somewhere that Karl Rove once said that. But you will notice something: Karl Rove is a sneaky underhanded lying SOB. If he REALLY wanted Dean to be the nominee, he never would have said that to anybody. If he DID say it, it almost certainly means he does NOT want Dean to be the nominee.

In September, 2003, a prominent Republican polling firm, Moore Information, circulated a memo insisting Howard Dean can beat George W. Bush in the general election and that "Dean is a threat [that] Republicans better not ignore." "Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but will not appear threatening to folks in the middle," the GOP pollsters write. The memo even goes so far as to compare the appeal of Howard Dean to that of Ronald Reagan: "Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems." The pollsters also make a convincing case for Dean's taking enough electoral votes to win the election even without Florida. "We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover." (www.moore-info.com)

Interestingly, it was soon after this that the blistering attacks on Howard Dean started both in the press and in anonymously funded ads that spoke about Dean over an image of Osama Bin Laden. The ads, by the way, turned out to be funded partly by random industry donors (probably Bush supporters), but largely also by Kerry and Gephardt supporters. Now Kerry claims he had no knowledge of the ads until they came out.

It was also around then that people started reporting that, in Frank's words, "Karl Rove is chuckling at the thought of Dean against Bush." Convenient, eh? I think the hard-right Bush supporters took the Moore memo seriously enough that they wanted to take Dean out, precisely because they knew he had the best chance of winning.

See more reasons why Dean would beat Bush here

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:30 PM

Prediction; the democrats will focus on the issues, and the republicans will focus on personalities. (They have to, after all, they have no record to run on)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:42 PM

Wolfgang,

I think you miss some of the differences between the American situation and the French one.

Here, in terms of the issues that will most affect this election, if we nominate Kerry we will end up in the same unfortunate position as the French: with a choice between two candidates who:

Both supported the unilateral US invasion of Iraq

Both supported the repressive "Patriot Act" legislation

Both supported the disastrous "No Child Left Behind" legislation

etc.

It bothers me when people mischaracterize what I say. I am not letting "my heart speak instead of my mind." And I didn't say people should "vote with their heart." That would be to vote for the candidate they like the best on personal grounds. That's how we ended up with Bush.

I said they should vote for the candidate they think will be the best president. In this, I mean the President who will do the most effective job. I think that's Dean. I also think that it's BECAUSE he could make such a good case of this that he has the best chance of winning the election.

But if you want to go on chances of winning, here's what I think

(1) if you think results and a proven record are most likely to get a Democrat elected, vote for Dean in the primary.

(2) If you think a good personality that people will like is most likely to get a Democrat elected, vote for Edwards in the primary.

(3) If you trust the corporate media to tell you who is most likely to win, even though Bush would be the best president for them, vote for Kerry in the primary.

That's my take on the whole "electability" question, which Wolfgang references above.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 02:51 PM

one reason to vote for the candidate you 'truly believe in'(in the primaries) is that IF he gets enough support to go to the convention with a lot of delegates, he can be a force in determining party platform and influencing direction- even if he doesn't win.

Also, it would be good for the party to KNOW what the true wishes of its grass roots members are! This current system, heavily influenced by media pressure, has people jumping onto bandwagons based on personality and 'image' rather than record, ability and platform.

I have listened closely to Dean, and I see many things to like about his proposals, philosophy and record, but I DO see why many are worried by his volatile personality and, simply, his 'appearance'...meaning facial expressions and tone of voice etc.

I saw him on C-Span, and was impressed by his ability to listen, answer questions DIRECTLY,(unlike Kerry, who usually answers in sound bytes)) and focus on issues, but he sometimes 'loses his cool' under pressure, and the media blows this up till he sounds like a crazed fanatic. I have no doubt Dean would be good *president*, if he could get past being a shaky *candidate*...but our modern media system and loaded primary system (Iowa & N. Hampshire durn near DECIDE for the resy of us) are biased toward the candidate with the best 'image'.

I would rather see a MUCH later set of primaries, all held at the same time, and a way for the public to see the whole range of issues, rather than just 'hot topics'.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 03:24 PM

I agree with Bill D on almost all counts. That's another reason why the US system is totally different from the French system, and why Wolfgang's analogy is stupid (sorry: suboptimal). [You brought that on yourself, Wolfgang! I am just getting my own back!] Here the alternative candidates are all members of the same party, and our votes determine not only who the candidate will be but also whose positions are taken up by the party, and what the party knows about members' positions. If we all vote for Kerry because we think he is electable, the party will take that as a 100% endorsement of Kerry's ideas, which it is not.

I also agree about Dean's unfortunate appearance. His face sometimes looks pained and/or grumpy.

The only thing I DON'T agree with Bill D on is the statement that "he sometimes 'loses his cool' under pressure." This is something the media have been telling us ad nauseum, without providing any evidence that it is true. He has never yelled at a debate, never lost his temper to a staff member (unlike Kerry), etc. The two lame pieces of evidence the media have offered is that once he said "no, sir, you have had your say and now I am going to have mine" in a stern tone of voice to a heckler at a speech, and that he "screamed" in his Iowa speech (which was, of course, a cheer and not a scream, as ABC, CNN and the other networks eventually admitted.)

I also agree that the primaries should all be at the same time, or at least blacked out, with their results secret until all the primaries have occurred. This way, people will vote for the candidate they want to win, for whatever reason (heart or mind), NOT the candidate that they think some other people somewhere else thought would be the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 03:51 PM

If it was issues alone that the US public voted on, Kucinick would be leading right now. If an angry reation was festering anoung the majority, Dean would be the front runner. But since the public is most concerned with electability... and is concerned with the ethics of the current administration... Kerry is emerging as the strong front runner.

I am increasingly put off by Dean supporters who are inexorably partial in their intra-party stance... Like kids kicking sand in their friends eyes because the bully is comming their way... It is just plain stupid to fracture party unity...

FOTM... At this juncture, taking Bush down in the traditional Democratic manner is THE most important issue. This means we listen, and listen well to the electorate... Persuasion is distraction is distortion is division is disillusion is disenfranchisement... It's time to put down the pedant's prognosis, and listen to the people.

"You who choose to lead, must surely follow..."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:07 PM

Nerd,

If you really believe Dean was the most likely to win against Bush, then what you write makes good sense from your point of view.

I don't share your belief, however, and am getting flashbacks of the McGovern campaign.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 05:53 PM

Wolgang,

The McGovern comparison was what the media tried to foist on Americans from the beginning. It only shows that most people (and I must include you in this) know nothing at all about Dean. He is nothing like McGovern in policy or personality.

TTR,

Your attempts to infantilize Dean's supporters are offensive in the extreme. Other people have tried this on other threads, and I have called them on it there too. If you have to resort to name-calling, I suggest you rethink the strengths of your position.

I agree that there must be party unity

BUT:

1) there is a time for that and it is not yet. There is never party unity this early in the primary season. And if it were really the case that running an actual primary campaign was "fracturing party unity," then why have a primary at all? Why not just have party bosses in Washington pick the candidate?

I'll tell you why. That would result in a unified party, but one that did not resonate with voters. Hence the need for primaries and for voters who vote for candidates, not media momentum machines. We cannot "listen to the people," as you say, until we let them vote.

(2) Everyone must agree that at SOME point compromise and compromise and compromise would yield a Democratic candidate who was not any better than Bush. We may disagree on when we reach that point. For you it could be Zell Miller, for me it could be Joe Lieberman. But at some point it would not actually be worth replacing Bush. Therefore the constant argument that "the ONLY important thing is defeating Bush" is merely pathological hatred of Bush. (If Dean supporters acted this way, you would call it juvenile.) The important thing is replacing Bush WITH THE BEST CANDIDATE WE CAN, not with any old clown. I think the best candidate is Dean. You might think it's Kerry, and that's fine. But don't tell me I have to shut up just because fewer than 10 percent of the Democrats in the US have so far voted for Kerry.

(3) You say that "Persuasion is distraction is distortion is division is disillusion is disenfranchisement." Nice try (well, not so nice, really--do you really mean that an attempt to persuade someone of something is an attempt to disillusion and disenfranchise them? Or are you just trying to sound clever?).

Real disenfranchisement is deciding who the candidate will be when over 75 percent of the Democrats have not had a chance to vote yet.

The real interesting question to me is: why are Kerry's supporters so threatened by the idea that other candidates might continue to run until Kerry has clinched the nomination?   Do they fear his campaign will implode and he will NOT clinch, or are they afraid he will not stand up to the scrutiny of the media, and will lose the election once he HAS clinched? If he were really such an amazing juggernaut of a candidate, his supporters might stop trying to tell everyone else to drop out, and might instead say something like...

...oh, I don't know...

"BRING IT ON!"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:20 PM

(Nerd..by 'losing his cool', I was more referring to Dean's tendency to toss off remarks that were not exactly what he would have said after thing it over...not to temper tantrums or the like...he has had to qualify his remarks a few too many times..His explanations are reasonable, but often the damage is done.)

one of the big pressures to 'decide' early is the money issue. If 4-5 candidates are locked in a struggle all Winter and into the Spring, they drain the $$$ that could go to the winning candidate after the convention. This way, they hope that by March, all the money will go toward defeating Bush, rather than each other. Some people have given their limit already, and the Bush coffers are full! I would also like McCain-Feingold to be seriously strengthened to limit spending and shorten the campaign process so we don't have to endure 2 years of heavy politics before the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 08:09 PM

Fer the Lord's sake - Don't you US of Democrats learn from recent European History !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 08:22 PM

Hi nerd...

My goodness... my impression of you is getting clouded by what appears to to me be invective on your part... a sort of surgical posturing... But, my friend, it's turning me off. Personally, I think Dean is cool and would make an awesome president! However, I really dug Nader, and have enjoyed his realism for decades... and after the elections in 2000, I felt like I had betrayed my true beliefs by aiding an especially unpopulistic candidate... ie. Bush. I will not make that mistake again.

Do you really believe that I hate GWB? C'mon pal, that's nonsense. I think he's a fine fellow, ...but certainly about one of the worst choices for 'World Leader' that I can imagine.

Kerry might be fine. It is foolhardy (in my opinion) to expect a major pendulum swing to last in politics, and in my opinion, although Dean and his supporters (of which I have been one) have been great and gutsy drill seargents kicking democrats back into their self assurance and populism... the swing is too reactionary for lasting appeal.

We have lost a lot of ground... more than most people realize... enough has been restructured in the core of our economic structure, that it will take great care and diplomacy to get even most of it back... I guess what I'm saying here is that I think we need an 'insider' who really knows how the 'hill' works... and someone who is willing to gracefully withdraw our violent diplomacy, and replace it with sounder aliances. A bridge builder.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:34 AM

Sorry, TTR, but when someone says a group I belong to is "like kids kicking sand in their friends eyes because the bully is comming their way" I take that to be invective, it clouds my impression of the speaker, and I am turned off. But it ain't permanent, and I'm sure you're a fine fellow.

I don't know what you mean by "surgical posturing," however...

One thing I find interesting: on the debates tonight, the commentator who opened it up said that she had NEVER seen either party so unified so early in a primary season. This has been my impression, too. But to listen to many others on this forum and elsewhere, Dean has made the party unusually disunited this year! I think they just haven't paid much attention before this year, personally.   

Remember, Clinton did not clinch the nomination until June. It is still mid-February. There's plenty of time to fall in line.

Bill D,

Kerry will not have to worry about $$$. First of all, his wife has $800 million which can be used to run anti-Bush ads and any other anti-Bush activities, freeing Kerry's campaign contributions to fund the pro-Kerry side. Second, I doubt if Dean's supporters will give money to Kerry, though they will vote for him. So Dean is not taking any money from Kerry and it wouldn't matter if he did.

On Dean's side, he raised more money in the primary cycle than any Democrat in history, and he is not in with the special interests who supply 80% of Kerry's money anyway. Really, the two have completely different sources of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:00 AM

A group you belong to... Democrats... If you're offended by that, then you must be spoiling for a fight... Though I appreciate your conviction and your determination, Your 'fighters stance' is not necessary here... really...

Good Luck!, and may the best man win... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Bobjack
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:26 AM

Whoops, wrong thread. I thought " Kerry and the supreme court" was a Motown group.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:33 AM

No, TTR, you won't get away with that! It was not about Democrats and I was not spoiling for a fight.   Read what you wrote. You can try to re-frame it or deny it later, but these threads stay around to haunt you! So I will quote it:

I am increasingly put off by Dean supporters who are inexorably partial in their intra-party stance... Like kids kicking
sand in their friends eyes because the bully is comming their way... It is just plain stupid to fracture party unity...

So you said very specifically that Dean's supporters were like little children having a tantrum and that we were downright stupid. You presumably knew by reading this thread that I was a Dean supporter. Therefore, I took this to be an attempt to marginalize and infantilize my point of view.

I may have been wrong about your intentions, and I'm willing to accept that if you say it's so. Like I said, you seem a fine fellow. But I was not just making it up...it does kind of sound that way from what you wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:24 PM

Nerd, perhaps TTR should have qualified his comment. ". . .Some Dean supporters. . . ." With that qualification, I can't help but agree. I saw the way some Dean supporters acted at the caucus I attended. It was very much "if we don't get our way, we're gonna take our marbles and go home!" which, considering what is at stake here (the future welfare of the whole country and perhaps the world as well) is not real mature. Sorry, but that's what I saw with my own eyes. Had I not decided at the last minute to put my oar in for Kucinich, I would have been perfectly happy with Dean (and may still be, if that's the way the Democratic Convention comes out). But the behavior of some of the Dean supporters was very off-putting. Enthusiasm is one thing, but this kind of behavior can be counterproductive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:29 PM

"Kerry and the supreme court" was a Motown group. They were the for-runners to "Kerry and the Pacemakers" they changed their name when they had heart problems. Later on in their careers they had water work problems so changed again to "Jerry and the Pacemakers"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,gonk
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:36 PM

Wise words indeed Sttaw Legend. You have injected some wisdom into an otherwise rather trivial thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:42 PM

TTR: Will you vote for Nader if he runs again?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:45 PM

Yes, Don and TTR, I think I see how I misread the original post. TTR probably meant that he was put off by those Dean supporters who acted that way. Not by "Dean supporters, who acted that way."   A subtle difference but an important one!

It was still a rather unkind comparison, but if I'm right about what TTR meant, then I overreacted.

Sorry, friends!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:46 PM

Anybody (particularly Kerry supporters) read George Will's column which was in our local newspaper today? It probably is available on the Washington Post website. Will poses some very interesting questions to Senator Kerry.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Cruiser
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:30 PM

George Will: Questions To Kerry

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 02:38 PM

I am about to read them... but first, I'd like to say this...

"George Will is THE mouthpeice of corporate demagoguery" ...yes, you can quote me... and is one of the sleaziest media pundits going... I think his support for Bush is blind and misguided... But isn't he polite, and doesn't he have great hair?!!! ...just like any slattern... ttr

Thanks Don! You found my squirreled away meaning... and saved me from being seen as another nutter...

Thanks for being big, nerd, and good luck!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: toadfrog
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:38 PM

Doug:
Having read the George Will questions, I think they come down to "Mr. Kerry, don't you realize that the Republicans are always right, and the Democrats are always wrong?" He is preaching to the converted. Anybody who agrees with Will is going to vote Republican anyway. The only thing that would really persuade me to vote against Kerry would be George Will's endorsement! Hey Doug, don't I remember you a while back saying that if you were a Democrat, you would vote either for Kerry or for Lieberman?

Nerd: So far as I can make out, Dean is basically a mainstream Democrat who chose to take a militant tone at the beginning of the primaries. His record is pretty moderate, to say the least. Politicians regularly come off their position papers when they are elected. Possibly this is because they find out they can't actually do all the things they said they would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 09:13 PM

Actually Dean may come into his own as the Democratic candidate, if the current rumors swirling around Kerry have any truth. Apparently there are allegations that one of Kerry's past interns, one Alexandra Polier, had a two year affair with Mr. Kerry. When questioned by the Associated Press, Ms. Polier left for a trip to Africa. Apparently the Washington Post, Fox News and the Associated Press are trying to find her. This, coupled with the release of the photos of Kerry and Jane Fonda protesting during the Vietnam War, and the release of Kerrys 1972 testimony in front of the Senate, where he stated that American veterans were "commiting atrocities everyday" heve led one local paper to call him "Hanoi John". Somehow the Bush National Guard flap is fading fast in West Virginia...

The Game Is On...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 10:55 PM

well, at the time Kerry spoke, some soldiers were "committing atrocities" Why does truth get you labeled as un-patriotic? Kerry didn't say MOST soldiers were guilty, only that it happened without much investigation. Kerry did his duty, even though he didn't like nor agree with some things he saw.

and WHY does it make any difference whether or not one of those fantasticly attractive Democrats ..*grin*... have an occasional fling with the ladies. The press used to make those kind of stories 'off limits'...(except for Gary Hart, who dared them). We are electing a leader, not voting on fuzzy moral issues.....(well, I HOPE we are!) I sure don't care who Republicans sleep with, as long as they don't do it with enemy spies.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:33 AM

Here we go again! Americans seem to be really obsessed with other people's sex lives. Where a man happens to put his winkie from time to time has absolutely nothing with his abilities as a leader. But then again, maybe it does. Some of the very best of our presidents were notorious womanizers.

George Washington isn't known as "the Father of his Country" for nothing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 01:08 AM

claymore, have you heard that these "rumors" have now been categorically denied by both kerry and the woman, that she was on a previously planned trip and that her parents also backed their daughters denial and say they will vote for kerry? and that of the two photos of kerry with jane fonda one was an absolute fake and the other showed him seated several rows behind her at an antiwar gathering? and that, as BillD points out, the fact that americans committed atrocities in vietnam is just that-a fact. and that all these things add up to another fact- the republican smear tactics are starting early. it's going to be a little harder to turn a guy with a war record like kerry's into "hanoi john" but i'm sure these scum will be hard at it. you need to get your news somewhere besides drudge and fox. i can get you links to these facts i've cited if you'd like to read more.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 06:27 AM

CBS: Kerry 48 : Bush 43
    Edwards 41 : Bush 50
    Dean 37 : Bush 54

Just one moment in time, I know, but I do not see that Dean has the best chance of winning the election.

Nerd, I see a lot of differences between McGovern and Dean, but that was not my point. I'm getting flashbacks of the McGovern campaign.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Frankham
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 08:07 AM

Hi Nerd,

I didn't intend for any of my comments to appear as acromonius.
Sorry, can't own that.

You said,
"In September, 2003, a prominent Republican polling firm, Moore Information, circulated a memo insisting Howard Dean can beat George W. Bush in the general election"

Why should any Democrat trust a prominent Republican polling firm
from September, 2003? In the first place, polls change from
day to day. Second, it could be a political ploy to bring
Dean against Bush. Dean would surely lose.

This said, I like a lot of things that Dean has said. I think
his issue statements are good almost as powerful as Kucinich who
is my first choice but unelectable.

It's not about issues really, it's about how candidates are
perceived. It's a form of show business. The issues can sometimes bolster the personality. Most Americans can't be bothered
by issues particularly if they are confused by counter-claims
and a plethora of speculative "factoids". They have to see
a clear winner.

This is why Bush was appointed. Not enough Americans saw a
miscarriage of justice and actually liked the guy who is like
them, mispronounces words, not too complicated, straight-talking,
and doesn't confuse them with the facts.   He can play on their
prejudices. He's almost the perfect talk show host. That's why his minions appear on hate radio regularly. A great propaganda tool.

Back to the point. Kerry looks strong, articulate, reflects the
attitudes of the other America more so than Howard Dean whose
followers are now in the minority. He doesn't appear to be unduly disrespectful of Republicans in general probably because he is
an insider and knows how the game is played.

Americans don't appear to like outsiders very well. Witness Clark as well as Kucinich and Dean.

I actually don't hate Republicans as you have charged. I am friends with a few and I think I know where they're coming from. Not
all that they say is wrong in my estimation. I believe that many sincerely want a president that doesn't appear to be unfaithful to his wife and has a high moral standard and doesn't lie to the public or congress. I can see that and agree.

I don't think that the "intern" smear will work against Kerry.

As to "flop flops" one candidate's flip-flop is another's
"flexibility".

All this discussion about the traction of the Dean candidacy will be moot after today's primary in Wisconsin.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 09:52 AM

Don:

The "Don't pee in the soup.." quote is credited to no one other than Lyndon B. Johnson...

Others:

Dean scares the Hell out of the "establishment". That's pretty much why he's been targeted by both political parties as well as the press.
Most folks have not formed their opinions of him from listening to him but from "establishment" sound bites. This system has become so terribly flawed and corrupt that it threatens the very foundation of democracy. And Americans, like sheep, are led where-ever the "establishment" wants them... Purdy screwed up...

Howard Dean is still my choice. I think he would make the greatest president since FDR.

With taht said, though I'm pretty steamed at the hatchet job the *establishment* has performed on my guy, I will work to get Bush back to the ranch where he can live out his days playing "Cowboys-n-Indians". Once that is accomplished, it's back to Green....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:14 AM

Frank,

If you insist on bringing up points in the earlier thread, so be it. I didn't mean for my comments there to appear acrimonious either, until you started making very harsh accusations of wrongdoing that were completely unfounded--nonsense about records being confiscated. This sounded pretty acrimonious to me, especially since it was false. I assumed you were lying, or at best purposely distorting the truth, but perhaps you were merely mistaken.

My "charges" that you hated Republicans were based also on your own statements, too complex to be brought up here (unless you want this thread to turn into that one). Suffice it to say that you suggested a judge could not be impartial if he was a Republican.

I also think it's funny that one of your main points was "Karl Rove SAYS he wants Dean to be the candidate, so it must be true!" But on the other hand, you don't think a Republican polling firm, which delivers opposition research to Republicans for their campaigns, can be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:38 AM

"I didn't mean for my comments there to appear acrimonious either, until you started... *bingo*... Admission that you did mean to be acrimonious, after you jumped to conclusions...

I am gathering that this is a form of appology, nerd...

No matter how politically correct the gathering... if it turns into a lynching, the participants are unethical and wrong... bigoted and xenophobic... Hardly PC at all in the final analysis...

Good Luck, and Deep Positivity!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:54 AM

By the way Frank, as to your message above

As to blaming Kerry for a nomination of a Republican Supreme Court Justice, that "dog won't hunt" either. That's mere speculation
and not evidence.

You do seem preoccupied with evidence and speculation. One problem with your characterization of my position, though: I never ever claimed that electing Kerry president would get a Republican supreme court justice appointed. Just the opposite; if he were President then he would obviously not put up a Republican for the job.

What I was saying was plain fact. If Kerry is elected president, there will be one more Republican and one less Democrat in the Senate than there would otherwise be. This will make it more difficult for him to appoint a Democratic justice, and indeed to do anything at all. If Dean (or, I suppose, Sharpton) were elected president, the balance of congress would not be changed by the departure of the new President from its ranks.

In the big picture, if the Senate becomes too firmly Republican, Kerry will be blocked from any legislation beyond executive orders. I'm not saying this would necessarily happen, just that Kerry leaving the senate would make it more likely. Not speculation without evidence, but cold hard fact.

The way the Supreme court issue works is that the Supreme court could be left with fewer than its full complement of justices because he would be blocked from appointing any. This would then be a standoff between the President and Congress which would be solved once one or the other shifted; ie until Kerry's term ended and we had a Republican president, or until Congress shited enough to allow Kerry's appointments to go through. This is entirely possible, but would depend on what happens in this year's congressional races too. There would never be any question of a Republican justice appointed by Kerry.

THIS is what makes your posts appear acrimonious to me, Frank. You mischaracterize what I say and then chastize me for saying things I never did. I have taken this in the past to be intentional distortion, but it may be unintentional. If so, as with TTR above, I apologize for getting miffed.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:09 PM

Oh, TTR, who until now was "Me? Mean and acrimonious?" Now admits that he was just waiting for me to slip up so he could say "Bingo! You really are a juvenile little prat!" I gather for you this is a form of maturity, TTR.

Now come on, people. If someone says "screw you," I say "screw you" back. If someone distorts and lies, I say "stop being such a liar."

If y'all can't handle that, too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:17 PM

Also, if someone's feelings are hurt, I apologize. For TTR to insinuate that my apologies are not sincere is, well, kind of mean.

But you know what? I can handle it! I trust y'all can too.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:49 PM

Like the typical 'knee jerk' political assessment, your reactiveness, nerd is immediate, and for that moment, unthinkingly retaliatory... a la Dean. Fine for those like ourselves of the 'artistic temperment', but suicidal for the politician...

If I have problems with your approach to political discourse, and find them partial in the extreme, it has nothing to do with how I feel about you as a person... Who, BTW, I admire, and I hope you will succeed well in life.

Uncompromizing political analysis has little to do being a successful politician when the electorate 'couldn't care less'. *bingo*... Bush 'shoots the moon'.

c'mon, nerd... no need to be defensive...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 01:35 PM

TTR:

I'm afraid you lost a little credibility talking about defensiveness and knees jerking when you yelled "bingo!" as a form of political debate. You also lost a little credibility on the issue of levelheaded analysis when you suggested that there was a "lynching" going on. (I'm still not sure what you were referring to there, by the way, but it certainly seemed over the top.)

It took you exactly 32 minutes from the time I last posted to note that my reactiveness was immediate. You were presumably talking about my 29 minute reaction time to you. Hardly seems a big difference to me. And it took you only 24 minutes to shout "Bingo" after my last statement to Frank. Online anything can seem to be an immediately reactive, knee jerk response. So as the proverb says, "Jerk not lest ye be jerked."

I also think it's unfortunate that, after I had apologized to you and you had apparently accepted my apology, you were obviously still harboring enough of a grudge that the minute I suggested in an exchange with someone else that I might have reacted to acrimony with acrimony, you felt the need to impugn my apologies with a gleeful "bingo!" Now that certainly seemed defensive!

However, I appreciate what you say (in the second paragraph of your post of 12:49, I mean), and I reciprocate the personal admiration...as far as I can without knowing who you are in real life, that is! (Do we know each other in real life? PM me if you want full disclosure.)

I never take the political discussions on Mudcat to be representative of people's personalities in real life. I know all too well that I can sound far more strident here than I would if you guys were in my living room, and I assume the same is true for many of us. So I'm pretty blunt here. I honestly don't mean to hurt feelings or step on toes. But I assume we're all adults and will handle it.

I also don't hold grudges against people who I feel have flamed me, slammed me, or whatever. Life's too short and there's too much good folk music to hear!

Which is to say: I love you all, even my Republican friends like DougR and Teribus. (Unless you guys think that's icky. In which case I can just respect you, okay?)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 02:17 PM

Guest from NW, you are a bit too facile for my taste.

1. You are correct with the denials which appeared after my threads date line. I simply regard this as the Gennifer Flowers portion of the investigation, not that I have one wit of proof to the contrary. But, to use an instant example, when Bush made his denial of the AWOL issue, complete with a prima facie honorable discharge, which is the dispostive document, the Dems even went for Bushes dental records. I want Kerry's underwear checked on this one; remember his cohort is Kennedy, of love'm and drown'em fame.

2. The only photo I saw was an AP of the rally. If the date of the rally is after Jane's photo shoot in Hanoi on the AA gun, then to appear with her afterwards is repellant, and needs to be clearly understood by the electorate.

3. Hanoi John was a "brown water squid", and never served a day with the infantry. Where he got his testimony that atrocities were occurring "every day" with apparent allusions to the entire country side, is beyond me, as I was in the DMZ at the time (LT. USMC) and we never saw any females to be raped, villages to be burned, etc. As many people know in the MudCat, I was the platoon commander of the 1st Plt, Kilo Co. 3rd Btn, 3rd Marine Reg., and Oliver North was the 2nd Platoon Cmdr. Several years later, when he was just a 1st Lt., he spoke on a TV talk show that he never saw an atrocity, and I can back his testimony. Later, in the book, Defiant Patriot, written about North, by Ben Bradlee, I am quoted as saying it was like fighting in the hills of San Diego, with burned off cliffs and craggy peaks. Thus, what I saw may not have been representative of the jungle fighting in the South. But even so, Kerry knew nothing of what we were going through, and his general remarks are nothing short of a stain on our performance. I have been searching for his entire testimony, and will read it to confirm the press accounts of Kerry's 1972 testimony. Then I will ensure that every veteran I know gets a copy...

I realize that atrocities did occur, but no where near the level the leftists portray, and the that Kerry's location gave him no source to speak of. It was massive overstatement at best and a stain upon the very men he seeks to surround himself with.

4. No one has disputed his medals, only the stain he put on them. When, in a public ceremony, he threw "his" medals over a fence at the Pentagon in 1972 (caught on TV) it turns out that many years later, after he had been elected to the Senate, that they were not his medals but a friends. He knew that the DoD would not replace his medals except for "good cause", so he used his buddies in this "public act of conscience" (his very words) so he could hold on to his own. This story was verified by the Boston Globe in a series of articles, and yet now seems to have been forgotten.

Remember that Kerry received a Silver Star and a Bronze medal, but so did Oliver North... The Dems started this round, and it ain't over...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 02:38 PM

Claymore,

I wouldn't dispute much of what you say. But I believe it was the White House who released the dental records, in a desperate attempt to prove that Bush was in Alabama when he claimed he was. The Dems would, of course, prefer actual evidence that Bush attended drills (not the dental kind), which the White House should be able to provide but cannot.

Also, the real photo of John Kerry "With" Jane Fonda shows him sitting three rows behind her--he was not actually "with" her, in other words, though they were both at the same rally. It was taken two years before her trip to Hanoi, though, so as to your statement "if the date of the rally is after Jane's photo shoot in Hanoi on the AA gun..." I can only say "It wasn't."

There is another photo of Kerry "With" Jane Fonda, but it is a faked photo. According to the snopes.com site:

The picture was created by merging two different photographs (both available through the Corbis archives) taken at two completely different times and places. The picture of John Kerry was captured by 20-year-old photographer Ken Light and documented Kerry preparing to give a speech at the Register for Peace Rally held in Mineola, New York, on 13 June 1971. The picture of Jane Fonda was snapped by Owen Franken over a year later while the actress was speaking at a political rally in Miami Beach, Florida, site of the Republican National Convention, in August 1972.

This photo has been falsely labeled an AP photo, so it may be the one you saw. Check out this page for the two original photos and the faked composite. You'll be able to tell that the photo of them together is a fake.

Hey, look, I'm defending Kerry! Like most of Dean's supporters, I'd rather this election be about issues and results today, not Bush's and Kerry's actions 30 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 03:28 PM

"the Dems even went for Bushes dental records."

as nerd points out, nobody was looking for dental records. that's just what the whitehouse passes out instead of any records proving the issue under discussion. another example of smear, lies , and obfuscation.

"Where he got his testimony that atrocities were occurring "every day" with apparent allusions to the entire country side, is beyond me...Thus, what I saw may not have been representative of the jungle fighting in the South."

admitting you have no way of knowing either what happened in the south or what sources kerry may have had for his statements. in other words, your entire paragraph regarding your service is irrelevant to the issues.

"I realize that atrocities did occur, but no where near the level the leftists portray,"

what is "the level that the leftists portray"? another example of ad hominim attacks against a generalization that means nothing (leftists). also uses the grain of truth (I realize that atrocities did occur) then minimized by the irrelevant attack. more obfuscation. the fact remains- atrocities occurred- agreed to by you, me and kerry.

"The Dems started this round, and it ain't over..."

the republicans actually started this war service issue in the last election when they smeared max cleland and now it's coming back to bite them. they got a pass on it in the 2000 election. by the way, as a veteran, what do think about right-wing slut ann coulters attacks on cleland in her recent column?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 03:40 PM

Ahh,

the level that the leftists portray is an ad hominem attack whereas right-wing slut is just a statement of fact?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 03:50 PM

Nerd, credibility or not... here I come! As soon as you take a step away from your apparent partiality, I find your input most agreeable... but when you feel attacked, and my point is... you feel attacked as an excuse quite often, and allow yourself 'liberties' that do not reflect your deeper cause... 'liberties' that obscure the decency of your 'a priori' arguements...

If I am guilty of these same 'liberties' at times, and I'm surely not perfect... The acuracy of my observations is unaffected. Muddying the waters of discourse with such tit for tat is unconstructive prattle, in my opinion.
Cheerio! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 04:18 PM

my description of ann coulter is my opinion of a particular person based on a column she wrote that we all can read and form opinions about as opposed to the other situation in which a generalized group is attached to an action.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 04:22 PM

TTR:

As soon as you take a step away from your apparent partiality, I find your input most agreeable... but when you feel attacked, and my point is... you feel attacked as an excuse quite often, and allow yourself 'liberties' that do not reflect your deeper cause... 'liberties' that obscure the decency of your 'a priori' arguements...

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberties" here. But your statement that I "feel attacked as an excuse" seems to be both a claim that you know my feelings and an accusation that I manufacture them for rhetorical effect. You must know me pretty well! Or else you take me to task for jumping to conclusions yet do so yourself with apparent impunity.

Muddying the waters of discourse with such tit for tat is unconstructive prattle, in my opinion.

Okay, I guess I agree with you. But isn't your above statement itself an example of that which you are decrying? (Granted, though, that this very statement by me is, too...Oh, the Shame! The Irony!)

Okay, you say that the accuracy of your observations is unaffected when you take "liberties." I would accept that, and say that the accuracy of my own observations is similarly unaffected by my "liberties." Given that that is the case, what makes the liberties that both of us are guilty of taking relevant?

Or put another way, if they ARE relevant, then (as you have admitted) you're guilty too, so we should both stop talking about them.

And if they're NOT relevant, then...why exactly do we keep on talking about them?

You don't have to tell me again that this is unproductive, by the way. That would just be another in this series of more or less meaningless posts of which we are both guilty. Unless you really want the last word, in which case be my guest. But then you may be slightly more guilty!

(I hope you can all tell, by the way, that I have tongue firmly in cheek, and do not feel in the least bit attacked. In fact, I feel a chuckle coming on!)

Actually, I was going to post anyway just to make the following bad joke and good point:

Wolfgang:

Right-Wing Slut is an ad feminem attack, because we have no evidence that she's a slut. But she sure likes to lie! You should all read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, where he exposes many of her outright lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 05:04 PM

*snicker*... The point is more simply put like this.

Nerd, Your last few posts have exposed my hypocracies succinctly, and I'm reasonably certain that you are the better person here. Dean's political tactics are by far the most effective, and Kerry is certainly just a target practice prop for the 'State Republicans'... and Bush is just a friendly guy doing his job.

I feel like it's a new day! ;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 05:10 PM

Nerd, I tried your blue clicky and my computer went to La-la Land. But the photo I saw was in the Washington Times and had Kerry back several feet from Fonda, who was in the forground, so I suspect from the attached descriptions it was the real one.

As for Guest from NW comments about "admitting you have no way of knowing either what happened in the south or what sources kerry may have had for his statements. in other words, your entire paragraph regarding your service is irrelevant to the issues" is massive truth to the contrary. Kerry was generalizing from his limited exposure in the country. I was pointing out that in my AO this was not the case. And it becomes even more revelant than any comment you could make or adopt because, unless I miss my guess, YOU WERN'T THERE. If Kerry did not give concrete examples of what he saw or experienced, he was simply parroting the leftist line, which I guess in Massachusetts passes for revealed truth.

And as for your later comment about Ann Coulter commentary; "we all can read and form opinions about as opposed to the other situation in which a generalized group is attached to an action", I would suggest you reread what you have written, take a look at the above paragraph, then look up the word "hypocrisy". You damn yourself out of your own mouth...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 06:46 PM

"Where he got his testimony that atrocities were occurring "every day" with apparent allusions to the entire country side, is beyond me"/ "Kerry was generalizing from his limited exposure in the country."

so which is it? do you know where kerry's knowledge comes from? one statement says you don't the other states its position as fact. i don't know myself and will be interested in reading his testimony to learn more. and no i was not in vietnam. i served in the military during that time period but did not have to go to vietnam. that doesn't mean that i can't know anything about atrocities committed there because there were public trials and public record, men convicted of such acts and other eyewitness accounts of such. it also doesn't mean that since you were there and didn't see any that they didn't happen (i realize you've already conceded that they did happen). if you feel "stained" by kerry's statement of fact why don't you feel more stained by the fact that the military and government you and i served committed these acts?

"he was simply parroting the leftist line"

once again attacking a generlized enemy even after admitting that the point (atrocities did occur) is factual. obfuscation and smear.

i don't quite understand how the quote in your last paragraph points up my hypocrisy. please elucidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 07:51 PM

TTR,

Okay, now we're all on the same page ;-)

Claymore,

Yes, it sounds like the real picture you saw, not the faked one. That was taken two years before the Hanoi Jane trip, and Kerry did not actually interact with Fonda even then (or so he says). They were, I believe, both speaking at the same rally, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 08:11 PM

OK NW, try this

When Kerry said that these atrocities were occuring everyday all over Viet Nam (which is part of the quote I did hear) he is

1. Generalizing

2. Wrong, as I can testify from my own knowledge.

In addition:
3. I don't have to refute every instance of an atrocity, just the area I know about to prove him wrong.

4. I was not the only person to make my observation about the area I was in.

5. The Viet Nam war lasted over thirteen years which is something like 4,745 days. There is nothing, not even in the most fetid leftist mind that records 4,745 atrocities. Even then, some of the events he mentioned such as rape, while a evil crime, is not in any sense of the word, an atrocity.

Moreover in todays Washington Post, he continues his lies. To quote him exactly on page C4, fourth to last paragraph:

"I led the fight against Ronald Reagan and his illegal, unconstituional war in Centeral America. I blew the whistle on Oliver North and his private aid network. I took on Noriega and drugs and the CIA...

Lets parse those statements made some 14 hours ago.

1. Ed Meese the Attorney General delivered the news on North at Reagans direction, long before any Democrat any where made any comment at any time, period. Then they piled on.

2.The "unconstituional war" was in violation of the Boland Amendment, which forbade giving arms to rebels fighting a communist government. Years later, no one I know admits to actually voting for the Boland Amendment, and even Phil Boland, it's author, said it was not one of his "better moves". While Kery voted for it he was not a sponser nor its author.

3. Maybe Kerry forgot that he opposed the Panama incursion, which Bushes father played a major role, nor, while there was plenty of CIA involvement with the Pineapple, was there ever any proof that the CIA had anything to do with the drug trade. Several wackoid groups tried to sue to find an alleged connection, but a Democrat judge in Florida dismissed the case with prejudice as built on conjecture and spurious allegations.

Now pause for thought, this is the guy you want for President? You have to know that the tapes of this trirade in Wisconsin are going to be played and played and played again in the South. And these comments are easy to refute. And he did it to himself.

Yes he honorabley fought in Viet Nam and was entitiled to his opinion. But when he tars the rest of us with that opinion, he's got to go down on the strength of his own statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 09:05 PM

This article contains excerpts for John Kerry's letters and diaries written when he was in Vietnam and gives a good idea of what he was actually doing there.

Read and learn before popping off.

(By the way, the news just came on. Wisconsin primary too close to call at this point. Kerry and Edwards neck and neck, Dean a distant third.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:17 AM

i only have a minute here so i'll get back later, but i would like to say to claymore that john kerry is not my first choice for the democratic nominee and i'm not all that hyped up to defend him and i know that he has a long record in the senate that can be parsed, spun, misrepresented and truly represented that will make for a long campaign season but the important thing is this...GWB is a dangerous megalomaniac who has lied, distorted facts and twisted the goodwill of the world and this country into a mess of disastrous proportion. in contrast, no matter what you can come up with on kerry, he served his country admirably (no questions about it), did spend time with common people in vietnam though he is also a child of wealth and, most importantly is NOT GEORGE BUSH! i will vote for whomever is the democratic nominee like a lot of people this year because we know the most essential thing is to remove GWB and his cabal of empire builders from power.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 11:18 AM

Dean has done the predictable: He has given up. Whom do you support now?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 12:41 PM

Well, if Dean has truly dropped out (I've been in the field all morning w/no access to news), then I don't have a strong preference now. I'd probably prefer Edwards to Kerry, and if he is still viable when my primary happens I may well vote for him.

Dean's dropping out makes one thing clear: one of these two candidates (Edwards or Kerry) will be the clear nominee. Had Dean stayed in, there was a very good chance that no candidate would clinch and that there would be a brokered convention. Dean would probably have come in second, because he has strong support in NY and CA, and I expect outcomes like Wisconsin (40-40-20, or even 35-35-30) might start happening once Kerry's momentum is slowed.

Dean may have dropped out not, as Wolfgang suggests, to "give up," but to prevent that truly divisive outcome. For any candidate to clinch the nomination, either Dean or Edwards had to drop out, and perhaps D+E (who have been meeting and talking frequently of late) decided Edwards was more viable even though Dean was still in second place in total delegates. Or, perhaps Edwards refused to drop out.

Dean, whatever anyone may say about him, is extremely loyal to the party and has been doing this to get the party back toward its core values. In fact, I expect him to turn the energy (and fundraising) of his supporters toward important congressional races as well as the Democratic presidential candidate. The Kentucky election was a good sign.

As for me, I will need to look hard at both K and E and decide between them. There has also been much talk between E and Dean of late, many meetings, and I suspect E might ask Dean to be vice pres on his ticket, if he got the nomination. Dean will make it clear through an endorsement at some point, but I won't necessarily go along. I like Dean, but I'm not sure how he'd be as VP; I'll have to rethink a bit.

In either case, once the primary is over I back whoever the Democratic nominee is! To Edwards' supporters, I still maintain that it is NOT over, so move ahead and best of luck. To Kerry's supporters, same thing. Don't take it for granted, but keep working for your man!

Frank, TTR, et al: Peace! Whatever happens, we ARE on the same side come November!

Republican friends, peace to you too. Though we are on different sides of this one, I know we all want what's best for our country and the world--we just see it differently! That's part of being Human.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: Frankham
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 10:20 AM

Hi Nerd,

Absolutely we are on the same page. Bush is ruining our country.
He needs to be replaced.

I don't agree with everything Kerry says and did. I like Edwards too but still feel that Kerry has the best shot.

I liked a lot of what Clark said as well as Dean and I really
think Kucinich is an embodiment of what I believe politically.

K is a marginal candidate although my fave.

As you say, it's really hard to know what the next few months
will bring. One thing, four more years of Bush will be disastrous for our country.

Of course, peace and respect to you. BTW, thanks for a lot of useful information. You are very knowledgeable.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry and the Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:30 PM

And Nerd, good will to you. I intend to defend my side of the fence vigorously, but at the end of the day (or election) I hope to be a good neighbor...