BS: Kerry/_____________???.....

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:40 PM

Well, if nothing else, it shows that Kerry is comfortable with his own self since Edwards is so charismatic. It remains to be seen if Edwards will outshine Kerry, which IMO, ain't a difficult thing to accomplish.

Now if Kerry will just throw the progressive a few bones then maybe some of us Green-leaners will rethink our Nadar-leanings...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:29 PM

I won a bet with myself...that I could find it on Mudcat before I saw it on TV..*grin*..

well, all in all, not a bad choice...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 08:10 AM

Edwards is the running mate.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Frankham
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 03:46 PM

Actually, to dispute this unknown and anonymous Ghost, in the fall of 1992,Kerry blew the whistle on Reagan's dealing with the Bank of Credit and Commerce when they financed the drug trafficking of the Contras. THe bank bilked 250,000 creditors and depositors out of billions and the CIA knew what was going on and still did business with this bank. Anyone remember Abu Nidal? He was tied into this bank. Kerry took a lot of heat from the Reagan crew over this one.
He just didn't know how far the radical right would go.


Again, Nader was a great Public Citizen as a consumer advocate but
as a candidate, he is a spoiler and will add votes to Bush. Those
advocating Nader are either Bush operatives or disgruntled rads.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and most of the left-wing mags
and pundits agree. He has been publicly asked not to run.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

Not if Nader is on the ballot in all the states that matter, and can capture a majority in those states by splitting votes off from both Bush and Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:13 PM

Yeah, and wind up with four more years of Bush.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:04 PM

If Kerry has just found about the right wing takeover of the government, I sure as shit wouldn't vote for him. That means he has been asleep at the wheel for well over two decades.

Try voting for Nader instead, who has known about the right wing takeover of the government and legistlature since the day Reagan took office, and has spent his career trying to get the government and legislature to do something to stop them.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Frankham
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:48 AM

Here's the bottom line. There is a radical right wing agenda taking
over the country. Gutting public schools, Medicare, Social Security,
advocating more pre-emptive strikes, deposing duly elected officials
and referring to their armed protectors as gun thugs (Haiti),fudging figures, defending corporate polluters, allowing the religious right-wing fundamentalists to take over government jobs, messing with the Constitution and the environment, using the UN when it serves their purpose and denigrating it when it doesnt. You think that this is an
extreme position? So do so many so-called moderates. Kerry woke up.
It has come to the point where you can't trust anything the Bush Administration is saying. There are demogogues there who will say
anything the public wants to hear to furthur their ambitions. The press is giving them a free pass (most of the media owned by corporate
conglomerates that see this in their best interest).

In short, anyone that believes that Kerry and Bush are the same is
living in a bubble. There is a new "subversion" taking place and
it's in the executive and legislative branches of our government.
Kerry has found out about it and that's what's going on.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Bobjack
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:19 AM

Post no 100. I thank you. You have made an old guinea pig very happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

eh you're probably right, I only spent 10 seconds thinking of some text. What I did achieve was a darn good vision of what Kerry would look like as a black man which is harder than it looks.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:59 AM

I think your cartoon a bit unfair, Donuel. Meaning, it parodies the wrong things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Frankham
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:05 AM

There's going to be a lot of stuff now that accuse Kerry of everything.

It's really important to know where it's coming from and just how
accurate it really is.

I don't think black people have a problem with Kerry. He has received
endoresements from some leading figures in the black community and
the fact that Kerry wants to be identified with the black community
is a plus in my book.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 06:55 AM

Kerry was referring to Clinton being in some black hall of fame and hoping he might end up there too.

As for the website DemoctraticUnderground, the only editorial cartoons they ever ban of mine have been those dealing with Democratic candidates: Dean Clark Kerry... The reasons are called "too violent" or as you just saw "racicist" but they only have ire for their own being lampooned.

If you know the Larry David show curb your enthusiasm, then you would see how funny the Kerry incident was.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:03 AM

Donuel -

I suppose some might think showing a pic of Kerry in black face singing Old Man River is racially insensitive but thats only if you overlook the fact that it is intended to slur Kerry not Afro-Americans. Did Kerry really say that? If he did, that certainly reveals the nature of the beast. I'd say, Nader looks better all the time.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:39 PM

that's fascinating, Donuel. You weren't allowed political satire in the form of a link to your site because it presented a Democratic candidate as a racist?

Haven't we seen Republican candidates called racist here? What's the dif? (just curious)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM

The message below was removed, because it was judged by the moderators to be inappropriate. Please be aware that only one rule violation is enough to get an entire message removed.

Please do not post messages that are racially insensitive.

Subject: A curb your enthusiasm moment for Kerry

Kerry said he would like to be second black president after Clinton. to which a black man in the audience got his 30 seconds of fame by labeling Kerry a racist advantaged white man ect.ect.ect. of cousre the clear channel screaming heads are all over this one. Well it was just like Larry David wrote it word for word. :) http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryblk.jpg


In order to continue participating on our message board, you must acknowledge receipt of this notification by clicking on one of these two links:

I acknowledge receipt of this notification and I agree to follow the rules.
I acknowledge receipt of this notification, I agree to follow the rules, and I would like to provide an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:53 PM

Yup, GUEST, that's right. We're all a bunch of tyrants, and we're hell-bent on whipping you into line. But we can hardly stuff a gag in your mouth or hold a gun at your head in the voting booth, so we're hardly infringing on your civil liberties. Rave on if you wish.

I can only speak for myself (although I believe this holds for many others here as well), but the source of my profound wisdom, grasshopper, is first of all, my inherent brilliance, second, my vast store of knowledge gained by living a long and varied life as a keen observer of the human condition, and third, that when I research history and read material from web sites and various other sources, I keep an open mind (being aware, of course, of the biases of the various writers, including those with whom I tend to agree), read critically, and try to learn as much as I can. I do not do this research with the object of selectively gathering facts—or pseudo-facts—in support of a pre-formed argument so I can use them to bludgeon others with in a feeble attempt to "prove" my point.

Nader and others have some very good ideas, but the way to convert these ideas into practical realities is not to attempt to scuttle the forthcoming (we hope!) regime change in 2004. You want everyone to vote for Nader (and if a sufficient number of people voted for him, that would be fine, but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen), so you go to considerable lengths to try find material that you think you can use to trash Kerry. If you're successful in persuading a bunch of people to follow you're ill-advised lead, I hope you can be happy with another four years of Bush. This strikes me as not a very practical way of advancing the progressive viewpoint you claim to hold.

It may have be Machiavelli who said, "Do not spend too much time examining what appears to be foolishness. Ask yourself what it accomplishes."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

Kerry has not gone untouched by my "pen"



Kerry has a curb your enthusiasm momment when he said he would like to be the second black president after CLinton...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryblk.jpg



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



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



http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerry2.jpg


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

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

Not much point in my participating in a conversation where I've been reduced by the tyrannical majority to a troll and a Bush operative, now is there?

And once more, the world is safe for the status quo.

Pathetic, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 05:16 PM

Guest. I'm mearly pointing out that folks (which sometimes includes me) that make broad brushed statements should be prepared to:
1. Learn something.
2. Be prepared to back up their statements with some facts and logic. Do you know for a fact that no overtures have been made to the Dean camp? If so, please let us know.
3. Keep things clean by not trying to make others feel inferior.

But, how can I ask this of one who is trolling?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 05:06 PM

I agree. I expect to hear all the same arguments against Kerry that GUEST uses coming from the Bush campaign. This is going to be a real mud-slinger, and GUEST is off to an early start.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Frankham
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:32 PM

Another Guest who won't reveal their name. It may be a Republican
National Commitee operative who attempts to use a worn-out radical line to stir up the waters.

"discredit those who believe that John Kerry's life of privlege (not just his and/or his wife's obscene wealth) effects his thinking, his votes, and the political alliances he makes, in terms of how it effects the citizenry"

There is no discredit since this thesis can't be proved one way or
another. It's strictly an opinion that I don't share with this hidden Guest. FDR was a president of privilege and accomplished quite a lot for working-class people. The tactic by the anonymous Guest is an attempt to stir up dissension amoung Democrats. It's a conquer and divide tactic. That's what makes me think that this Guest
is disingenuous.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

Okay, let's talk about "naïve."

I am not dedicated to Kerry. Nor, as I have said before, am I a Democrat. As I have also said before, my primary aim in the coming election is to get Bush out. I believe that any one of the Democratic candidates would be better for the country, and for the world, than another four years of George W. Bush.

My actual preference is for Dennis Kucinich because of his policies (Ten Key Points), but unfortunately Kucinich has something of a charisma deficit and I'm not so naïve that I think he could actually win against Bush. This is a pathetic state of affairs, but unfortunately these things seem to matter to the electorate. I would also vote for Nader if I thought he had the best chance of defeating Bush, but due to his lack of foreign policy experience (non-existent, to be precise) I seriously doubt that Nader would make a very good president, nor am I not naïve enough to believe he could actually win. Independents and third parties have never done well in this country. Read your history.

I would like to see this country join the rest of the civilized world in terms of progressive programs such as universal health care, a solid and unassailable Social Security program, guaranteed high-quality education, workers rights (such as a livable minimum wage, overtime pay, and a maximum number of hours that someone can be required to work), curbs put on the excesses of corporate greed, a fire lit under the Securities and Exchange Commission to make them do their job, rational attention paid to environmental issues, full restoration of the Bill of Rights, genuine separation of church and state (and keeping the government the bloody hell out of people's bedrooms), start abiding by our treaties, support the United Nations—and I especially like Kucinich's intention to establish a "cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish non-violence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs." I am not so naïve, however, that I believe that any candidate put forth by the Democratic Party (or any other party, for that matter) will—or can—bring all of this about, except through hard struggle and over a period of time. Because of the forces at work, the country will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming. But the Democratic Party has historically leaned in this direction, still at least pays lip-service to some of these principles, and would offer less resistance to being pushed in this direction than the Republican Party.

And if you seriously believe that Nader has the chance of a snowball in a blast furnace, then I ask, who is the naïve one here?

And as to accusing me, or anyone for that matter, of "vociferously . . . trying to shout down the dissenters," in the light of the tantrums you keep throwing, you, sir or madam, verge on the ridiculous!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM

"...most reliable allies"

???????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

I take it you are assuming that because Kerry won the primaries, that all Democrats and independents are now magically lined up in lock step with the Democratic party's apparent nominee.

I think you are a bit premature, not to mention naive. The party has made absolutely no overtures to the Dean camp, or the Nader camp. If they don't do something to remedy that soon, they will have likely blown yet another presidential election, because everyone isn't lined up behind Kerry, period.

It doesn't matter how often or vociferously you keep trying to shout down the dissenters. You aren't changing our minds, and you most certainly are alienating your most reliable allies--but of course, you don't give a shit about us allies, you just want our votes, and then have us shut up and go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:26 PM

You're living in hope that Kerry will screw it up? Let me point something out to you GUEST, in case you missed it: Kerry is the front-runner because he garnered the most primary votes and caucus delegates. I take it you feel that means nothing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM

Hey--on the wealth issue, talk to Frankham, as he is the one suggesting that too many leftists "have issues" with people of wealth. That is a tactic to discredit those who believe that John Kerry's life of privlege (not just his and/or his wife's obscene wealth) effects his thinking, his votes, and the political alliances he makes, in terms of how it effects the citizenry. In an era of millionaire politicians (just how many US senators aren't millionaires?) it is a legitimate question to ask.

As to suggesting that anyone who isn't supporting Kerry is actually a Bush supporter trying to sow seeds of discontent and "steal" votes from Kerry, like I said, that is a Communist Party tactic old as the hills.

Are all of you suggesting that anyone who isn't for Kerry is for Bush?

I don't think this election is quite that simple, despite the simple minds here thinking that saying so makes it so.

I would like to remind people that Kerry is not the official Democratic party candidate yet. He is simply the apparent nominee. Shit can and does happen between primaries and conventions, that cause the apparent nominee not to become the nominated candidate.

Like plane crashes. A recurrence of cancer. Making a gaffe, or series of gaffes, that causes the nominee to become unelectable.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:18 PM

Point number two was meant to refute the statement that that rich poeple never do anything good with their money. There are many who certainly don't, but those that do have a far reaching good affect on society.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:08 PM

Guest, I must disagree with you on several points.

Having personal money, for the most part recently, sometimes works against a candidate. It didn't work for Forbes and it didn't work for that Texas infomercial dude either. Both of these folks have accounts that reach somewhere out near Pluto.

Point number two. Have you ever heard of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center? It was funded by two very rich, hard working GM execs who were out on the work floor every day! Ever heard of Cyrus Eaton? He owned Eaton Industries. They made Etonics running shoes among other things. He was a socialist in Cleveland,OH and made very big bucks for himself. His goal was to die poor, which he did. He saw to it that his workers (and Retirees!) were well cared for. If you look back in the history of steel, you'll certainly find Andrew Carneighy. He's responsible for tiny little libraries in small/large town America. Look a little further back in history and you'll find Rebecca Lukens. She was a Quaker and inherited Lukens Steel when her husband died. Quakers allowed women to inherit property, unlike the rest of America. She worked hard for her company and made sure that it survived economic down turns when other steel mills were shutting down. Have you heard of Milton S. Hershey? Of the Hershey chocolate fame? He founded Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, where no patient is ever turned away. The fund is funded by his trust and other medical research foundations. He also founded the Milton S. Hershey School for Boys. It is by far the better of Choate and all the other private hoity toity private schools. It is a little different in that the boy has to be in trouble with the law, a bit of a scoial outcast, and have no father in his family. If you meet these criterion, you're in!

I could go on and on, but no sense in doing that. As Paul Harvey points out, there is always "the rest of the story."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

If the cap fits, wear it.

I'd say the odds are pretty overwhelming that that particular GUEST is a Bush fan trying to be cute. I imagine we'll see a lt more like that over the next few months.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:25 PM

GUEST 10:14 AM says that "If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century." GUEST 2:15 PM provides a link that says John Kennedy was richer, and that most of the 'Kerry family' money is his wife's. I sure do wish these GUESTs would discuss their points among themselves before attempting to make them on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:12 PM

Let us keep something in mind. This election is no different from any other. We have a choice between crap (Bush) and more crap (Kerry). The Bush administration created the USA Patriot Act (a clear attempt to repeal the Billof Rights and create an American KGB). Senator Kerry voted for it. Neither party has your intersts in mind. They only care for thier own power. The only issue that the Democrats seem to have is the the Republicans are in power and the Democrats aren't.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:41 PM

"I guess it's a foregone conclusion by many rad types that if
you have a lot of money you can't be on the side of the working
man or woman."

Not a foregone conclusion, simply your assumption. And considering how many wealthy people the radical left has backed over the years, including Nader and Howard Dean, I'd say you might want to re-examine your assumptions in that regard. It is entirely possible to be opposed to this particular candidate's wealth and privleged background, if we think it has unduly influenced his votes. Many leftists believe that to be the case. But it looks as if Kerry's supporters are a pretty intolerant lot when it comes to differences of opinion. Which means they are likely pretty unsure as to what exactly their man will actually do, if elected.

"Reversing the reverse Robin Hood of the Bush years."

Really? Where has John Kerry said that? He voted for welfare reform, after all. NAFTA ain't exactly about redistribution of wealth.

"Black people by in large will support him."

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting that everyone should vote for Kerry because many black voters will vote for Kerry? What the hell kind of recommendation is that supposed to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Frankham
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:18 PM

I guess it's a foregone conclusion by many rad types that if
you have a lot of money you can't be on the side of the working
man or woman. I don't get that. There are rich socialists, even.

Kerry is his own man in my opinion. He likes part of the Patriot
Act. I don't. But I see why he voted for it.

But I like his straight talk. He doesn't apologize for what
he believes in. He will not wear the label of "liberal" because
he doesn't like labels. He says enough of what I believe in
for me to volunteer for him as a president. I am in accord
with most of his ideas and have learned something from him about
how hard it is to get a bill through congress that does anything.

I feel his integrity. Some might think that I'm being manipulated
by the media but that is their short-sightedness and their
agenda talking. Kerry may turn out to be a superb politician.
I don't see anything wrong with that. You need to be something
of a politician/statesman to be an effective president. It's part
of the job description.

Money doesn't always corrupt.

From where I sit, I think Kerry has a vision for where the country should go. More international cooperation. Better deals for
college kids and shoring up public schools. Fund those unfunded
mandates. Community service as was initiated under Kennedy.
(Peace corps). Reversing the reverse Robin Hood of the Bush years.
Defending civil rights by dumping Ashcroft. Taking a sensible
view of Iraq by not doing anything too radical but bringing in
more of the international community to get us out of this quagmire.
Telling the NRA where to get off. Listening to other people and
what they have to say. (That's a big one for me.)

Black people by in large will support him. They know he is on
their side. Ask Representative John Lewis from Georgia.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:16 PM

I seem to be keeping you ping-ponging from one thread to another, GUEST. I'm through arguing with you. You're a waste of time, both mine and your own.

I've run across you before.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:07 PM

"It does make a difference, whether you think so or not."

Wrong. Don Firth's opinion is that there is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats. That does not make Don Firth's opinion fact. Nor does it make the opinions of those who don't agree with Don Firth's opinion, wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:57 PM

Well, for one thing, you're trying to convey the idea that there is no difference whatsoever between the Republicans and the Democrats; Bush and Kerry (or anyone else the Democrats might care to run, perhaps?) are philosophically and politically joined at the hip. No sale, GUEST.

You seem pretty vociferous about trashing Kerry. I'm not real fond of him myself, but at this point, he's the best we've got who actually has a chance to win. And I may be "Henny Penny" as you seem to think, but I am one of those who is dead set on getting Bush and his Merry Men (rob from the poor and give to the rich) out of office. Once Kerry is in, it's a matter of leaning on him. And I'm damned sure he's more receptive to progessive ideas than Bush ever thought of being. It does make a difference, whether you think so or not.

But then, I'm not at all sure that you're coming from where you say you are.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM

From the left leaning news weekly City Pages:

50,000,000 Kerry Fans Can't Be Wrong Can They?

Many longtime Kerry watchers still insist that down deep, he's made of wood. In Boston, Kerry is a famous target of mockery for liberal and conservative columnists alike. The criticisms usually concern his imperious manner, his love of privilege, his unerring sense of what is best for John Kerry. For years his nickname among reporters was "Live Shot," a reference to Kerry's gift for turning up in front of any camera in his vicinity. If he is elected, his wife's nearly half-billion-dollar fortune will make him the wealthiest president the country has ever had...

For a generation now, the Democratic Party has played me-too politics and unswervingly followed Republican leads...

In the Clinton era, the Democrats became adept at drinking from the same corporate fountains as Republicans. But as Alan Murray wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, "those days are over. If any Fortune 500 CEOs are backing John Kerry, they are keeping quiet about it."

Thus the Democrats, for the first time in modern memory, find themselves forced to sing to the people in the cheap seats for their supper.

The public has begun to see that left versus right is not the name of the game. "Left" and "right," after all, have not had a consequential public disagreement in many years. The split that is inflaming the public mood is the one between insiders and outsiders.

This is the taproot of popular animus toward Bush, but it also happens to be Kerry's great weakness. The real payoff in Republican attacks on Kerry will come from taking shots not at his voting record but at who he is: a mainstay D.C. insider who can be shown, without much trouble, to have twisted with the political breezes all through his career. They will point out that although Kerry may have awakened one recent morn on the wrong side of "special interests," he is still the leading recipient of lobbyist contributions in the US Senate over the past 15 years.

They will pound at the frequent and cheerful hypocrisy of Kerry's collected public utterances, the most famous being his Yes vote on the Iraq war he now condemns. But there's no shortage of examples. JK on the Patriot Act now: "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." JK on the Patriot Act then: "It reflects an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work... [I am] pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation."

And they will trawl up story after story about the kind of guy Kerry is. Howie Carr, one of those Boston columnists who's made a cottage industry of mocking his state's junior senator, recently published a brief compendium of some popular yarns. It's worth quoting at some length to catch the flavor:

"The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: 'Do you know who I am?'

"And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

"Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

"The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside 'cottage' on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fundraiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms."

Democratic partisans and Bush haters of every stripe will rightly retort that Kerry's sins are far less egregious and consequential than Bush's, but that's not the point. Karl Rove saw the numbers of "nontraditional voters" giving money to Dean at the start, and he has no doubt noticed the record numbers turning out for primaries and caucuses. He's not stupid. The eventual Republican endgame will be to stifle public interest in the whole mess and depress the number of voters that turns out in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:19 PM

Guest. I'm not saying you're wrong about the double edged paranoia thing. Just that you're never going to get taken as genuine as long as you use the Guest handle. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just telling it like it is.
Incidentally both McGrath and myself are UK based, so we don't have a vote, just our own distant observations.
John :¬]>

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:09 PM

"GUEST, you're showing a tendency toward some pretty wild, shotgun accusations, on this thread and others."

Examples, please. Making shotgun accusations that someone is making shotgun accusations is an ad hominem attack.

"Anyone feel just a bit suspicious about where this particular GUEST is coming from?"

And McGrath, how charming and quaint for you to pull out the old communist "if they aren't with us, they must be a plant from the right wing establishment" ploy. Or are you merely suggesting I'm from the Dean camp, which would be treated the same as if I were an FBI agent working on the COINTELPRO project for J. Edgar?

Apparently, none of you read much, and you especially don't read much in the way of political discourse. There is a big debate going on in the world beyond Mudcat--within and outside the Democratic party--about just how electable John Kerry is going to be come November.

But since the alpha males here seem to be supporting Kerry, it appears that no dissenter's opinions will be tolerated. So it is time to take out the big, black brush and paint over those GUEST posts that challenge the Mudcat alpha male conventional wisdom.

You must be feeling very threatened by my arguments, gentleman. Two ad hominem attacks in a row means I must be hitting the mark.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM

Anyone feel just a bit suspicious about where this particular GUEST is coming from?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM

GUEST, you're showing a tendency toward some pretty wild, shotgun accusations, on this thread and others. I'm just trying to keep you honest.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:15 PM

You could try here, at forbes.com:

Kerry Would Be Third-Richest U.S. President
Dan Ackman, 02.13.04, 7:00 AM ET

The Richest US Presidents

If you wish to know more about the selling of the presidency in 2004, try the Center for Public Integrity's very interesting website, which is touting the book "The Buying of the Pesident 2004" by Charles Lewis (one of their own) here:

Center for Public Integrity

Are those sources credible enough for you Don, or do you need more "proof"?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM

"If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century."

That's quite an assertion, GUEST. Can we see some figures and documentation on that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

McGrath, according to law in most US states, unless there is a prenuptial agreement/allocation of assets prior to marriage, the assets of both parties in a marriage is still considered joint/community property.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM

"If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century" Isn't it Kerry's wife who has the money? Does that really mean it belongs to Kerry?   

I thought you got rid of that kind of property law back in the 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:29 PM

Oops, I forgot to add affordable education to my list.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:28 PM

As a leftist, I agree that Bush is toast. I am not concerned about him being re-elected, because I just don't think he has the votes now, nor do I think he'll have the votes in November.

So, since I believe the Democratic party can easily take care of getting their man elected in November, what are the issues I would like to see brought to the forefront this election year?

Well, the economy is at the top of the list, but in a tie. My other number one issue is cost of and access to health care. Followed by a closely by affordable housing, affordable child care, and affordable transportation.

The basics, in other words, that neither party is addressing this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:03 PM

"You sound as if a Bush defeat is emminant, John. This ain't like you one danged bit..."

Bobert

au contrere. I have maintained (without a swerve) since the summer of '03 that Bush would lose no matter who the opposition put up against him.

The math is simple. The Democrats won the popular majority in '00. The Democrats will lose no voters by '04 -- all the same voters will still be voting Democrat. ---BUT---- they will gain additional voters because 1) Nader will not take so large a piece of pie this time 'round (lessons learned). 2) The hatred of Bush is a frenzied mass of new voters (the anti war rhetoric has been largely successful and, while still USA/self loathing in its soul, has been able to walk the rhetorical tightrope to seem less anti-american than it seemed in its earlier inicarnation as anti-vietnam war USA haters).

Meanwhile, I suspect that Bush has already lost a HUGE portion of voters from his base. Few conservatives that share my POV are excited to vote for him on a Lesser-of-two-evils basis (as they held their noses and did in '00 -- easy to forget that Conservatives have never cared deeply for Bush jr--every conservative rag from Wall St Journal to National Review warned that Bush was unprincipled as a business man and would likely fold (as had Bush Sr) at the slightest pressure from Democrats, especially as he has showed no signs of understanding conservative economic principles.....much less acting upon such. His spending policy in order to try to make himself popular with his enemies has alienated what few political friends on the right he did use to help him get elected in '00, and proven the worst fears of the tentative voters he once had from the right.

Bush is toast.

I reiterate.......watch for Bayh.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM

The wealthy don't have a very good track record of dealing with wealth, though. Their track record is that they horde it for themselves, at the expense of the common good.

And who is saying that we need to elect a poor person president (and I assume you presume the poor person is also poorly educated)? I for one would be happy with a highly intelligent middle or working class person as president, senator (let us not forget that the US Senate, and more often than not, the House as well) is a club for white male millionares.

I am not saying a wealthy white male can't make a good president. I am saying I think we need to open our government up to make it more representative of our citizenry.

Remember, our government is supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION, not of corporations and capitalists.