logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Who "lost" Kerry the election?
Who/what will lead Kerry to lose in November?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 74
Guests cannot vote 
nebraska29
post Sep 17 2004, 03:11 PM
Post #1


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



IPB Image


Recent events have me in absolute amazement about the Kerry campaign. In a matter of only a few weeks, a president who de-facto dropped out of the Vietnam war conflict was painted as a hero, while a purple-heart award winning veteran was made to look like an exaggerator and opportunist. ermm.gif Not only that, but the economy and war-two issues that Kerry should be prevailing on, are not clearly Kerry's issues. blink.gif


I've posted before about the moderate-liberal fighting going on within the party, here is a link regarding Joe Klein's analysis of Bob Shrum and Shrum's recipe to lose elections, which features populist economics and a pessimistic outlook. Shrum is a great campaign manager at the state level, but has yet to help anyone capture the white house.

Questions for debate:

1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well? If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
AuthorMusician
post Sep 17 2004, 04:59 PM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Nebraska29,

QUOTE
1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well? If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?


Who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well in the polls? Well, could be the polls themselves trying to predict an uncertain future. The attempts to identify likely voters is a problem. What characteristics do likely voters have? It's a hard thing to define, and each polling outfit has its own ways that can vary from poll to poll.

I didn't think Kerry was the strongest candidate -- I'm a Dean kind of guy. So maybe Democrats still lacking intestinal fortitude with national elections is a problem. Remember? The primary deciders wanted someone "electable," yet another thing that's very hard to define.

Maybe what's needed in this election is the passion of a Dean with the reserve of a Kerry, blended maybe in the ratio of 3:2. Could Kerry get the passion going in the next six or so weeks? Maybe so. Not holding my breath.

But mostly I think the absolute lack of restraint on the oppostion's attacks are largely to blame. How do you fight this stuff? Apparently, by attacking back, but that drags the whole process into the muck. In this case, it is the US voting public that will bring GWB back for a second term.

Which might be what the Bush administration needs as a sort of punishment for its first term. Instead of Demos having to resolve problems created by neocon thought, it will be the neocons themselves left to admit to their own failures.

So at this juncture in time, I'm of the mind that it might be poetic justice if Bush wins a second term through deception, stretches of truth, rabid muck slinging, and unabashed appeals to the emotion of fear. Once the celebrations are over, the realization that four more years is a curse and not a blessing might sink in.

Who knows, maybe the Demos are seeing this early? Do we really want this mess to clean up? Should we let the neocon movement die a natural death or give it a whipping boy for four years, only for nouveau necons to yank power again in 2008?

Well. I doubt it. I think the Kerry campaign is struggling with attack dog tactics, dirty politics, and the ease in which public opinion is manipulated by those without any real moral attachments.

And so we will get the government that we deserve. I can be pretty cavalier about this as I'm not, nor am I approaching, draft age. I am not, nor will I be, a reservist or National Guard member. At most I suppose I could be a conscripted civilian contractor.

Or am I too much of a security risk? Dag nabbed free thinking guitar playing motorcycle riding writer.

It'll take a while before the barrel gets that low for scraping out. Can see it developing though, and so Kerry gets my vote, as Gore got it before. Plus I think Kerry will be much better for the country as a whole, but it's looking like I might be in the minority come Election Day.

Ah well. It's frustrating. Who is to blame?

The voting public, and the voting public gets to live with its choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 17 2004, 08:44 PM
Post #3


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



You know it's a darn shame that this topic was confined to the Democrats Only forum because I'd love to have some of the board conservatives and Republicans post some big HAR-DE-HAR-HAR's in here. I cannot believe the defeatist attitude of some Democrats now that Bush has gotten his bounce. Maybe the GOP is right about their crap about "girly men" and Dems being "wussies."

So Kerry isn't a liberal fantasy come true? He's not ideologically pure on key issues? He hasn't run the most inspired and charismatic campaign?

Get over it. Please tell me who you think wouldn't be getting pummelled by the GOP attack machine right about now? Dr. Dean? General Clark? Reverend Al? Senators Edwards, Lieberman or Graham? Representatives Gephardt and Kucinich? Former Senator Mosely-Braun? PLEASE tell me who you would have liked to see going up against Team Bush and who they wouldn't have opened up like a can of beans by now?

Is it the polls that have you worried so with six weeks to go? Okay, try this one on for size:

Polls show Kerry back in the US presidential race


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two opinion polls released showed Democratic challenger John Kerry back in contention with President George W. Bush in the US election race.

Bush had recently had a lead of up to 11 percentage points after the Republican convention at the start of September.

Less than seven weeks from the November 2 vote, a Harris Interactive poll for The Wall Street Journal gave Kerry a 48 to 47 percent lead over Bush, while a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed them tied at 46 percent.

The Pew center conducted two separate polls showing that Kerry erased his deficit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...fp/us_vote_poll

The polls are ALL over the place. You can find misery or joy according to who's doing the poll:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/

I didn't answer any of the poll choices because they're all menu items for a loser's lunch. I didn't put a Kerry/Edwards yard sign up and give two more to my brother and sister because I think Kerry has lost already. I didn't put a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on my car (something I have NEVER done before) because I think Kerry has already lost. I didn't tell my boss I'm taking Election Day off because I'm going to be driving people to the polls because I think Kerry has already lost.

Am I sure Bush is going to lose? NO--I'm not. But I am sure that Kerry can win because if I didn't think so I wouldn't waste my time thinking otherwise.

We already know George W. Bush can be beaten because Al Gore did it in 2000 and he ran a worse campaign than Kerry has. Don't TELL ME that this is over before the first vote is counted because I don't believe it.

And for those of you that do, well, just be content in the knowledge that you have made Karl Rove and Karen Hughes very happy little Republicans today.

Don't believe the hype. Don't let the GOP talk you into declaring defeat and looking for someone to blame with all this time to go. Don't let someone TALK you out of a fight that hasn't been fought.

Get mad. Get motivated. Get your butt to the polls and do the right thing. dry.gif

dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 18 2004, 05:49 AM
Post #4


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I find this thread ridiculous, unless you view all these polls as the "Holy Bible" when it comes to predicting the outcome of elections. These polls are much like a hypochondriacal patient demanding that a physician check his temperature every five minutes for changes in his condition. I suppose it is possible for someone to worry himself to death.

Curmudgeon watched a commentary on CNN Friday night which shed some light on the discrepancy in the most recent poll results. In the poll that showed George W. Bush 13 points ahead of Kerry, the first question was, Who are you going to vote for for President? In the polls where there was a dead heat or a slight advantage to Kerry, that question was posed after respondents had to answer questions dealing with issues such as Iraq, the economy, and the War on Terror.

I'll let the posters here form their own conclusions as to why these other polls were more favorable to Kerry, but I would suggest that after considering the state of the war, the economy, and the safety of Americans here at home, some Americans found it harder to wholeheartedly endorse President Bush.

If we can get the voters thinking about Bush's track record on domestic issues and not just the PR about the WOT and capturing Saddam Hussein, our man Kerry has a much better chance of winning. But Democrats are going to have to bring up that track record, as the Republicans have very wisely decided not to run on Bush's actual record but cast aspersions on our candidate instead.

I am a volunteer for Kerry. Some of you could be volunteering, too. If you care about this country and the next four years, I would encourage you to get busy.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 18 2004, 06:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cadman
post Sep 18 2004, 06:50 AM
Post #5


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 411
Member No.: 1,193
Joined: September-13-03

From: Outside of Chicago, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



I would agree with nighttimer and Pe's take on things a lot of polls are showing the numbers closer where it seems like the bounce that Bush once had is dwindling back to where it was. Yes Kerry has had a bad month, but has seemed to wake him up. I have watched several rallies on C-Span of Kerry's and he is talking about the issues and where this administration has gone wrong. Unfortunately the news only take out snipets of the rallies so it seems like he is not talking about the issues. As well as he is not talking about Vietnam anymore. Which is good. Talking about it a little is no problem, but it did consume him to much. Even if he did not talk about it at all I believe the Swifties would have still come out of the woodwork, because even though McCain or Cleland did not bring up the war history in their campaigns in 2000 or 2002 it was used against them.

This post has been edited by Cadman: Sep 18 2004, 06:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 18 2004, 02:41 PM
Post #6


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Even if he did not talk about it at all I believe the Swifties would have still come out of the woodwork, because even though McCain or Cleland did not bring up the war history in their campaigns in 2000 or 2002 it was used against them.


Good point, Cadman. It just amazes me how the voting public responds to the negatives and ignores the Republican weaknesses.

PE and nighttimer, good appeals to the passions that need to be pushed over the next six weeks. It's time for Demos to get ticked off again, to raise voices and adrenaline -- but will it work?

I was hoping for more thoughtful debate, but again, the voting public isn't very thoughtful. Or is it? Is it just an illusion from bad polling practices?

I sense a quiet undertow working against the Republican attack dog machine. Voting people might be keeping their cards close to their chests as the scream machine continues on with no meaningful dialog to speak of. People are returning from Iraq with stories to tell, and the stories are spoken in low voices so as not to raise the hackles of the dogs. In the workplace, an equally quiet thing goes on regarding the future of jobs in the US. On other issues too, the voices have gone inward.

In this sense, the Kerry campaign might work by continuing to point out weaknesses of the opposition while promoting Demo strengths, in calm and rational tones. If that works, I'll be very impressed with the voting public.

It has surprised me in the past.

Or like a hurricane, this could be the calm eye period before the big last push.

It's going to be interesting, these last weeks. I'm ready to be surprised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Sep 18 2004, 03:49 PM
Post #7


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This thread may be a bit early or pessimistic, but it's something that people are beginning to talk about a lot. Check out today's(september 18th) edition of the New York Times, and you will find an article by David Brooks. In it, the fiasco that is the Kerry team is explained in detail.


The first group fell quick and changes were made....

QUOTE
Into the valley of hope ride the 600, the inner ring of Kerry confidants. A year ago, there was just a small and hearty band. There was the campaign manager Jim Jordan. There was Gibbs, Cherny and Mellman. But under their reign, the message was not honed. The candidate did flounder. The quest for a Kerry conviction was not fulfilled.


Everyone but their dog was brought in to somehow improve the campaign.

QUOTE
Policy committees gathered. Of domestic policy councils there were 37. Of foreign policy councils, 27.

And in each of these councils resided faculties and think-tankers by the score. On the justice policy task force there were 195 members, lawyers brave and strong. On the economic council, more than 200 economists did search for a conclusion. When these groups did meet, so long was the line of approaching Volvos that it was visible from outer space.

Yet still the message was not honed. King Kerry still did equivocate, hedge and reverse. Of flip-flops there were more than a few. He still did Velcro his principles upon the cathedral door, and change them by the hour.





The result?....
QUOTE
And tumultuous is the cry of the strategists, and loud are the furies of the campaign, but in the center there is a silence. For in the beginning all was vacuum and a void, and while all the king's horses and all the king's men do build this grand and mighty structure, the sound of their hammers echoes limitlessly in the hollow within.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opinion/...hp(registration required)


If it's good enough for the Times, it's good enough for us!.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 19 2004, 05:39 AM
Post #8


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



David Brooks, like William Safire, are the pet conservative voices of the New York Times. Frankly, I don't care what he thinks and the fact that the Times does isn't terribly important to me.

I can tell this with complete certainty. Most people have made their minds up for whom they are going to vote for. Polls aren't going to change their minds. Campaign ads aren't going to change their mind. Debates aren't going to change their mind.

I knew in 2000 that I would never vote for George W. Bush. Nothing has happened since then to change that.

Can I tell that John Kerry is going to win? Hell no. But who would be presumptious enough to start a thread "How Bush won the election" six weeks before the election?

No one. Not one of the board's conservatives and/or Bush supporters has started such a thread because while they may be confident Bush is going to win, even THEY aren't ready to call it a stone cold lock.

So why precisely are people so eager to write the swan song for Kerry's presidential dreams? Or is it so important to be first that you don't care if you're right?

ermm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 19 2004, 08:54 AM
Post #9


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
This thread may be a bit early or pessimistic, but it's something that people are beginning to talk about a lot. Check out today's(september 18th) edition of the New York Times, and you will find an article by David Brooks. In it, the fiasco that is the Kerry team is explained in detail.


QUOTE
If it's good enough for the Times, it's good enough for us!.


Nebraska29,

I need to point out something about journalism: The voice of a newspaper is in the editorials of the newspaper, penned by the editors. The voice of a newspaper is not in the columnists that it runs.

The NYT tries to balance its columnists among liberal and conservative types, so don't get confused as to which voice represents the newspaper's take on things.

If it's good enough for the NYT, it's good enough for me? Beul hockey.

Again I will say that if GWB gets a second term, it is because the voting public bought into the Republican tactic of taking its own weaknesses and hollering about them loudly, with zero logic, turning them upon the opposition.

No real service to country? Kerry's medals are frauds! Screwed up in Iraq? Kerry flip flops! In the pockets of big oil? Kerry has no message! Jobless recovery? What jobless recovery??!! Tax cuts for the wealthy? You all got tax cuts!!!!!!

And it goes on and on with no abatement, right up to November and the big decision.

Might I also point out that those with no real argument try to write in terms that approach fictional creative writing, as the snippets given indicate. The imagery is drivel not worthy of a junior high school student's attempt at stringing words together.

So no, this is not good enough for me.

I will acknowledge that getting on message is difficult for both Demos and Repubs this time around. Where the Demos are struggling with what might sell, the Repubs are simply attacking and ignoring any message other than:

We need strong leadership or our tushes will be attacked again!!!!

Right. That's why we need Kerry, a proven leader, not this ugly thing, this frankenstein monster of compasionate conservatism faces sutured over sneering neoconservatives, that we have now. No more cynical abuse of the American public's reaction to tragedy. No more hidden agendas promoted as war on terror. No more double-speak coporate-inspired drivel.

Yep, but will the voting public buy this or some other message? We will see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Sep 19 2004, 11:44 AM
Post #10


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Let me ask the Dems here if Kerry is someone you actually back by policy or if we are just looking for a stop gap buffer zone? Is he the President of your future? Not mine by any stretch of the imagination. Why keep pretending? I guess not to give Republicans any more fodder, but here on AD, arent we somewhat honest-ish? laugh.gif

I hope Kerry does win, but I cannot at this moment say that the reason is because hes a great, even a 'good' choice if it werent by contrast to his opponent.

I wish Kerry would give forth a clear vision of the American future. His speeches are uninspiring and plans vague in their message. I feel nothing towards him.

They did well to start targeting the middle class for tax cuts instead of the wealthy, but whoever advised him to mention the 'over the $200,000 mark' made a huge mistake (again!).
Most of middle America are paying mortgages on their homes that are in the $200,000 or above bracket. Even if they make only $55,000 p/y
(the US median income) they are looking towards the day they will make $200,000, or the day their $200,000 mortgage is paid. Telling them that this tax bracket is a 'bad' tax bracket was a mistake of huge porportions. Maybe the half million mark or higher would have been better.
This indicates Kerry is out of touch with with middle America (not suprising). People in America no longer relate to a struggling poverty mentality even if they are financed to the teeth (which they are), 'getting rich, appearing rich, is good', being rich for real is better. Every person wants to see themselves richer, and the $200,000 mark is too low. This appeals to 'too' low end earners, and proves that the Dems are out to take your money if you ever get ANY WEALTH of substance which is easily $200,000.
Besides that.. everyone knows that Kerry is so rich that he cannot 'feel your pain'.
Bush has an added advantage that you think you could have a backyard BBQ with him and he would shake your hand and call you brother, somehow relate to you; even if he is a silver spoon fed, skull and bones, arms selling dynasty- corrupt, prove Im better than daddy, illiterate, elitist, ego bloated emperor with no clothes who will assure that the $10 million and above earners get their tax breaks as "-my base. "
Although this 'connection' is blatant a lie in the Bush case, Kerry does not connect with the people that way. In fact he does not connect with the people at all.

Im sorry to disagree with you NT. Im not trying to be first to declare defeat in an attempt to save face. Kerry is a continual disappointment. He does not represent me, nor the half of the country that was against the Iraq war. I personally think he needs extensive therapy, because he cannot STOP talking about his Vietnam service (nevermind his testimonial to Congress against his own, as if anyone forgot) in relation to this election, despite that it is hurting his chances every single day. I see a psychological problem there that worries me. Intense Denial of the facts of his own life circumnstances, what pertains to the country in the here and now and no common sense to let a misplaced ego trip- go (for his success).
I say, own that you thought Vietnam was wrong and own that you think Iraq was wrong or right. Nothing of the sort coming from J. Kerry, just a legend in his own mind.

Now, Bush, is much farther a legend in his own mind because he actually believes he deserves to be president. We have two very character weak candidates here. Bush did not even expose himself to a physical ( in civilian terms, logically, that equals fear of a drug test and that would normally mean loss of employment, and in the military?), never mind shrapnel, line of fire, serving in another country in war (god forbid he might have subjected himself to actually leaving the US for any reason than a one time beach vacation in Puerta Vallarta).
However this is not what an election was supposed to be about and this admin has advanced ONLY because of the idiocy of the american public to be so easily distracted from the issues that concern their everyday lives. As was said we deserve the politicians we get because of our ignorance. (Its actually an Italian saying of old)

Kerry can win if Americans have the balls to the wall fortitude to to speak out by vote 'against', it wont be because Kerry helped us get there. It will speak volumes that we reject the Neo-con agenda no matter what on policy, because this candidate has little to offer so far.

I apologize to my friends for betraying the idea that Kerry is a viable candidate and not backing him with unrestrained glee. Its a wonder he got the nomination in the first place, and if so much were not at stake Im sure most of you would agree but simply cannot say so publicly. That is understandable, then again I might be wrong and some may actually think he is a good candidate.
Regardless, I think its important to oust the Bush admin.
Reasons: Kerry will bring back our lost allies, we need them. Regardless of what people think we cannot go about Iraqs 'liberation' without allied backing since we have lost our standing there. Kerry may actually help out enlisted by funding and benefits which this admin has cut to the core.
We might adress health care instead of a new war on Iran or Syria.
We might adress education and Social Security which are in dire need.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Sep 19 2004, 12:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Sep 19 2004, 04:13 PM
Post #11


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 19 2004, 06:44 AM)
Kerry is a continual disappointment. He does not represent me, nor the half of the country that was against the Iraq war.  I say, own that you thought Vietnam was wrong and own that you think Iraq was wrong or right. Nothing of the sort coming from J. Kerry, just a legend in his own mind.

By no means has the election already been decided, but Kerry has already revamped his staff once. Gore got into a habit of it and look where that got him. ermm.gif You also can't deny that on the issue of military service, Kerry should win hands down, but it's obvious that the campaign has a "blind spot" to the Bush machine and it's attacks. It's almos as if they are purposely trying to relive 2000 or something. He is undoubtedly in a predicament, I'm curious to know as to who is responsible for it. hmmm.gif

I agree with Artemise on many points. Rather than hear him brag about his purple hearts, I would like to hear him brag about blowing the whistle like other soldiers, about "Free-fire zones" and other practices that soldiers were ordered to carry out from above that had little to no value of winning the war, other than to terrorize the populace(a good strategy given the puppet government that was about to fall didn't have their support anyways) I guess I'm more along the lines of he doesn't want to take a position, he wants to bea mushy-moderate. Though I would surmise that Artemise would be more for Kerry trying to have things both ways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 19 2004, 10:12 PM
Post #12


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



It is a mystery to me that so many think Bush is such a great leader. He was the President when 9/11 took place. What was a President to do in that situation? Let's see--visit the site, hug policemen and firefighters, dedicate aid to help, make speeches about how proud and courageous America is, how utterly devoid of humanity the enemy is, and that we're gonna get who's responsible. And that's what George did. So?????????

What about investigating what led to the 9/11 attacks? He resisted that. How about getting sworn testimony from our highest leaders to find out what they did and how it could have been done better? It was like pulling teeth to get him to trot out Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission he didn't want formed, and Bush himself would not testify under oath but only appeared on condition that his Vice President hold his hand during the proceedings to get their stories straight.

Bush could not be bothered reading the PDB that said Osama bin Laden was definitely planning an attack on the United States. The idea of hijackers using planes to slam into buildings had been posited, but his administration paid no attention. Condoleezza Rice said she didn't know that planes would be used that way. Richard Clarke testified that this President wasn't even interested in meeting with him or hearing his anti-terrorist information.

So what or who is keeping this joker in office? Who in their right mind actually thinks of Bush as a decisive leader rather than a reckless, not-so-bright cowboy who thinks that his pet doctrine, preemption, won't end up biting us in the nether regions when other countries (like Russia) say if the United States can do it, so can we?

Dubya has been fashioned by the RNC into a security "blankie" for some, even though he is fraying and has shrunk down to the size of a dish towel. Are we all so afraid that our country is going to go down the tubes if he doesn't get a second term? I'm more afraid the country will go down the tubes if he does.

How much of this crap have we accepted from the RNC and their 527s about Kerry anyway? The fact is, he has a good record as a dedicated U.S. Senator, and much, much more experience than Dubya ever had with national government while he was running for President. Kerry has convictions without being religiously overbearing. Kerry is admittedly hawkish, but he's got a brain and he's not afraid to use it. Kerry, while he has not been poor, is aware of the plight of Americans born without silver spoons in their mouths, and he is speaking out about gainful employment, health insurance, Social Security, education with adequately funded programs from tax cuts withdrawn from those who will hurt the least for it. And he's actually environmentally conscious, earning the League of Conservation Voters endorsement.

Kerry's biggest problem is that he wants so damn badly to win. He cares enough--do we?

Now is not the time for Democrats or the ABB crowd to be gun-shy in the face of smarmy, sanctimonious blather from a side that can't even run on its own record. Republicans have learned the magician's trade of smoke and mirrors campaigning--they are master illusionists when they manage to portray Bush as some kind of savior for the country. Don't fall asleep to what's going on.

It is incumbent upon us to do our very best to elect our one hope of getting back our "government FOR the people". Yogi Berra was right: It ain't over 'til it's over.

Kerry is very much alive and he needs our help NOW.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 20 2004, 05:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 21 2004, 04:39 AM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 19 2004, 07:44 AM)
Let me ask the Dems here if Kerry is someone you actually back by policy or if we are just looking for a stop gap buffer zone? Is he the President of your future? Not mine by any stretch of the imagination. Why keep pretending? I guess not to give Republicans any more fodder, but here on AD, arent we somewhat honest-ish?  laugh.gif

I hope Kerry does win, but I cannot at this moment say that the reason is because hes a great, even a 'good' choice if it werent by contrast to his opponent. 

I wish Kerry would give forth a clear vision of the American future. His speeches are uninspiring and plans vague in their message. I feel nothing towards him.

Besides that.. everyone knows that Kerry is so rich that he cannot 'feel your pain'.
Bush has an added advantage that you think you could have a backyard BBQ with him and he would shake your hand and call you brother, somehow relate to you; even if he is a silver spoon fed, skull and bones, arms selling dynasty- corrupt, prove Im better than daddy, illiterate, elitist, ego bloated emperor with no clothes who will assure that the $10 million and above earners get their tax breaks as "-my base. "
Although this 'connection' is blatant a lie in the Bush case, Kerry does not connect with the people that way. In fact he does not connect with the people at all.

Im sorry to disagree with you NT. Im not trying to be first to declare defeat in an attempt to save face. Kerry is a continual disappointment. He does not represent me, nor the half of the country that was against the Iraq war.

I apologize to my friends for betraying the idea that Kerry is a viable candidate and not backing him with unrestrained glee. Its a wonder he got the nomination in the first place, and if so much were not at stake Im sure most of you would agree but simply cannot say so publicly. That is understandable, then again I might be wrong and some may actually think he is a good candidate.

QUOTE


Artemise, back in the day when we used to burn up the phone wires arguing long into the wee small hours of the morning, I'm not sure how often we ended up agreeing after arguing. Perhaps it's time for me to break off a long-distance call to Alaska?

I'd like to take issue with one of your points. I have heard said over and over ad nauseaum about Dubya being a regular guy who I could pound a beer with and slam down some BBQ with. That is such a twisted fantasy that I can't believe that intelligent people still regurgitate it.

Let me make this perfectly clear. George W. Bush is NOT a "regular guy." He's just as much a blue-blood elitist as John Kerry. Kerry just doesn't try to front and act like he isn't. The difference between Kerry and Bush is both of them are smarter than a lot of the people they come in contact with, but Bush has got his "aw shucks" persona down a bit tighter. Dubya is never going to have a beer with me, you, Amlord, Beladonna, Aquilla, Dontreadonme, Hobbes, Conservpat or anyone else on this board. We don't travel in his circles. We aren't his kind of people. If you don't think Kerry feels your pain, Bush won't even acknowledge there's any pain to be felt.

A little confession here. I haven't been passionate about a candidate for President for 24 years. The last time I really voted for someone rather than against the other guy was when I voted for John Anderson over Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Even when I voted for Clinton over Dole, I didn't think Dole was a bad guy. I just thought he was a bad choice for president.

I'll be candid with you Artemise. At this point I don't care if your vote for Kerry is only because you can't stand Bush. Whatever gets you to that point is cool with me. If you have to hold your nose to vote for Kerry, hey it's all good. If you want a more ideologically pure choice then cast your vote for Ralph Nader. He won't win and might assure the wrong guy does, but if you can live with four more years of the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the Bush twins, be my guest.

At this late date, I have no interest in trying to sell John Kerry to people who haven't made up their minds or are lukewarm in their support. By now, you know exactly what you are going to get with Bush and if you don't care enough to vote for the only viable alternative to Bush then I can't convice you and it isn't worth my time trying to do so.

Kerry isn't my liberal fantasy come true either, but he's the only horse we have in this race that has a snowball's chance. You see Artemise for me this is all very simple. My 14-year-old son will turn 18 in the last year of a second Bush term and I will not permit him to be taken and sent off to die in some Middle Eastern desert for the greater glory of the neo-conservatives. That's not to say that a President Kerry wouldn't send my son off to die in war but I truly believe with all my heart that Kerry wouldn't send American sons and daughters for the same trivial, ridiculous and immoral reasons that Bush did.

Dick Cheney has made it clear: "Vote Bush or Die." I'm afraid that it's more accurate to say "Vote Bush AND Die."

That's all.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Sep 21 2004, 04:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Sep 21 2004, 08:50 AM
Post #14


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Whoa my friends! I wrote my post knowing that this is a 'dem only forum', which means I am pointing out our weaknesses and not preaching to the choir.

I know Bush aint a 'sit down and hash it over and come to a reasonable conclusion guy.'
My post with its heavy Bush insults should have made that clear. I am talking about the overall perceptions of the general public and how Kerry was blowing it.

I get it, believe me, I do get the necessity of throwing this admin out on its corrupt, lying, secretive, 'profit making think tank'- driven, warmongering, wasteful and self serving backside. Dont ever think I would vote for Bush or for that skeleton that third parties drag out of the closet every 4 years in the name of the spoiler, Nader. I just wish the candidate we are supporting wasnt such a terrifying obsessive. I see problems with him.
It does not take much to realize what is causing the problem of losing. Someone MUST have told Kerry to leave his service in Vietnam behind and move on, but he was incapable of it for too long.

Only now has Kerry gotten the message and hopefully he rides it to the end.

PE, I share with you the same confusion where Bush supporters go. I talk to them a lot as the nature of my business. Its unfortunate that a while ago many conservatives were disillusioned by Bush and shaking their heads in lack of understanding -- Kerry over-time served to solidify them in their own camp by appearing totally lame. He let the Swift Boat Veterans take off too long and it took effect. I know its insane considering the Bush record but it happened. Now thats all conservatives talk about, besides that 'he was a traitor to his own soldiers' when he testified before Congress, which noone in the patriotic, flag waving , "america is always right sector" of society can relate to. Somehow THAT has risen above most peoples concern for their own well being.
You see, to conservatives- patriotism is a primary value, hence this scandal has overshadowed the deficeit, the economy, the future..its an ethical concern. It doesnt matter that Bush lied about the war, shirked his own service, has no record to speak of on basically anything, it only matters that Kerry maybe got a false purple heart because it was only shrapnel in actual service in a foreign land. Lets just say, the public has a bit of attention deficeit. Its not logical but its pearls to swine, when up against a brick wall of reasoning.

QUOTE
Though I would surmise that Artemise would be more for Kerry trying to have things both ways.


I am obviously not communicating well, or not being read well. This was a Dem only forum and Im speaking to the like minded. I am analysing the situation not talking about my own politics (which as everyone should have known long ago are about as liberal as they come) I said I wish John Kerry had owned his Vietnam dissent. I wish he'd never brought up Vietnam in the first place considering his service and ultimate dissent. It was a recipe for disaster.
John Kerry is trying to have things both ways and this is losing him his own base and encouraging apathy towards him. Dems cannot afford apathy in the public because conservatives are passionate these days. Dean did amazing, passionate, grass roots groundwork for Kerry, a base he could have picked up but BLEW IT by taking the middle road and supporting Bush when challenged. These were young people who suddenly believed! This was a huge voting block who now will not vote for more of the same Cock and Bull story and a stogdy uncharismatic Kerry.
Kerrys advisors have sucked lemons, Kerry sucks lemons. Sorry.

Does anyone know what a voting block of the 18 to 25+ year olds are? Dean had it in his hand and it could have been passed on, but it was left to die in the dark of mediocrity.

I saw Drew Barrymore on Letterman the other night. She has done a documentary on young people and voting. Youth are our future, and they are a voting block untapped and disregarded, shame shame for Dems this time around. Competing for the 40-70+ year old vote, who by nature have children, will protect that $200,000 investment by voting government kickbacks by tax cuts and dont want major changes or social progressions that will upset the status quo; that is a hard policy to campaign against; but we need progression in the US, do you think we shall get it from some worn out intellectual liberal elitists (like myself?)
We are a stuck in the Reagan Era, which was stuck in the 50's already, a nation of extremists which base our economy on continual war and arms selling. The kids dont want to die in wars, they want to go to school, they want something new, they want hope for their futures, an ideal so lacking in these dull candidates and their dull speeches and dull outlook. Youth are without a doubt the dems much needed new blood. (Take a lesson from Mao, since we are condonning firing people for their political beliefs) He used youth to change the face of China for decades.

NT, although I miss our midnight conversations, its much easier on our phone bill and there is no need to worry. Regardless that Alaska is a conservative State and will go Bush, with our 2 electoral votes of little importance, I will still be at the polls and will vote Kerry and Tony Knowles (independant/dem for Senate), truly the best and least corrupt candidate.
I just see such bad mistakes with the Dems these days. How we got SO off track and so spineless and so utterly ignorant of who we are is beyond me.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Sep 21 2004, 10:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Sep 22 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #15


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I nulled my vote for this poll. Where is the "none of the above" or "other" or maybe even, the "I think Kerry will win" option Nebraska? The opening question is not only pessimistic, it is based on the assumption that Kerry is going to lose. At this point I think this election is even closer and more uncertain than the 2000 election.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say Kerry is "not doing so well" either as you are suggesting. National polls are for the most part garbage, the people that answer those things aren't the ones that will decide this election. Furthermore, many of them are completely misleading. If you really must base any kind of decision on polls, I would suggest taking a read of Real Clear Politics' Head-to-Head and
State Polls. I could go on to make the case for why Kerry isn't "losing" as you suggest, but that isn't really the topic for debate.

Now what I think you meant is what are the weaknesses of Kerry and the Democratic party, but that is just what I'm guessing.

I personally think it is far too early to start doing a post-mortum analysis of an election that hasn't even happened yet. Maybe we can re-visit this thread in 2 months, otherwise I would suggest that if we really want to have an honest discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic party then we should start an appropriate thread.

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at here, in which case feel free to correct me and clarify.

This post has been edited by Cube Jockey: Sep 22 2004, 12:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 23 2004, 12:03 AM
Post #16


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I didnít like any of the answers in the poll, so I didnít vote.

Iím more optimistic than Iíve been in days. Despite a well orchestrated convention, three hurricanes affording Bush the opportunity to ďappearĒ presidential and the CBS debacle, the election seems to be a toss up.

Today the Dow lost 135.75 points, the NASDAC 35.47 and the S&P 500 15.74. Oil prices closed at over $48 per barrel meaning higher prices gasoline and heating oil. Despite Greenspanís optimistism, some on Wall Street see the economy tanking.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV...ches/P95178.asp

Add to this the beheadings and mounting deaths and wounding of Americans, Iraqis and others.

George Bushís world is in chaos. When the world he helped create goes into chaos, so does mine.

None of this makes me happy. I have a tax sheltered annuity thatís tied up in the stock market. Frankly, Iím scared.

In the midst of all this Republicans released an ad today showing Kerry windsurfing. The first mention I heard of Kerryís choice of activities was from MSNBCís Joe Scarborough on Convention After Hours. (This was the 1st or 2nd day of the RNC) Then Sunday, Wolf Blitzer, a man with all the apparent timidity the name Wolf implies, made a snide comment about the windsurfing. Kerry's camp promptly characterized the ad as juvenile. Are the Republicans now on the defensive?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../9732873.htm?1c

Above link requires registration.

The link below shows some pictures of Kerry windsurfing. I don't understand why some see this as anything other than relaxation. Certainly there isn't the political significance Scarborough, Blitzer or the Bush people seem to think. I can even see the activity producung a temporary serinity. Maybe that would be better than our current president, who at times, looks so combative, that one wonders if Don King hasn't prepared him for a prize fight.

http://www.pacificwindsurf.com/gallery/kerry

Although there are some flaws in the sites approach to the Electoral College, Kerry has pulled ahead of Bush. This may change tomorrow, but I think itís a step forward.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

MSNBC also released results of a new Wall Street Journal that shows Bush leading 48% to 45%. This is a statistical tie within the margin of error.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6073871/

This is no time for hand wringing, pessimism or over optimism for Kerry and no time for Bush cheerleaders to break out the pompoms.

So to answer the question, I don't think Kerry has lost the election.

I've edited this several times for clarity, correction of typos (some I noticed only after Cube Jockey quoted a portion) and to add links.

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 23 2004, 08:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Sep 23 2004, 07:20 AM
Post #17


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 23 2004, 01:03 AM)
The link below shows some pictures of Kerry windsurfing. I don't understand why, some see this as anything other than relaxation. Certainly there isn't the political significance Scarborough, Blitzer or the Bush people sem to think. I can even see the activity producung a temporary serinity. Maybe that would be better than our current president, who at time, looks so combative, that one wonders if Don King hasn't prepared him for a prize fight.

If this is the best that the Bush/Cheny campaign can do then I don't think we have much to worry about. I mean seriously, windsurfing? Is that supposed to be a bad thing for a presidential candidate to engage in or something? I fail to see how a candidates leisure activities, especially something like windsurfing, are relevant.

Furthermore the message behind this ad is tired and anyone who has half a brain and researches the facts will see that the GOP is at the very least telling half truths and at the worst blatantly lying.

This proves that the GOP is trying to distract the nation from actually paying attention to the issues, and vote on personal factors alone.

The point on the DOW and the price of oil is also a very good one too BoF, I think that we are going to see a lot of people taking notice if the price of oil gets to the symbolic $50 a barrel mark.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Sep 23 2004, 12:08 PM
Post #18


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
This proves that the GOP is trying to distract the nation from actually paying attention to the issues, and vote on personal factors alone.


What does that matter if it works? Does Kerry want to win or be right? Jog for 30 min to stay in shape, and get back to work. Personally I am tired of seeing Kerry windsurfing and engaging in all sorts of leisurely activties, because I am not afforded the luxury to be week after week on some mini- vacation, and I bet a whole bunch of unemployed people arent too happy with it either because not only arent they windsurfing, they are fighting for their existance.

Bush may have the luxury of campaign time vacations, because the 'elite' are his base, they understand the Presidents need for 'off-time'. Kerry's base are people trying to get beyond the grief of lost sons and daughters of the war, the unemployed and the people Bush has let down in the last 4 years. If Kerry needs so much leisure time, he shall certainly have it after he loses this election. Seriously I could slap him silly for allowing himself to be photographed time after time enjoying the life of the rich and famous. He should be seen WORKING and nothing but, well in contrast to the Bush record vacation time. He needs to visit families of fallen soldiers, not seen yachting, talking to people about their lives, not bicycling, campaigning, not on the beach.

Get it, that these ads are effective, right or wrong. The Kerry campaign has to be the worst run in recent history.

Cube Jockey, the topic was, " Who lost the Kerry election?" I dont know if your recent comments were directed to me, and although I dont think the election is lost yet, I think talking about what is going wrong is well within the topic.

QUOTE
If this is the best that the Bush/Cheny campaign can do then I don't think we have much to worry about. I mean seriously, windsurfing? Is that supposed to be a bad thing for a presidential candidate to engage in or something? I fail to see how a candidates leisure activities, especially something like windsurfing, are relevant.


Wait and see how relevant this becomes. Kerry has NO connection with the general public.
All of his time should be about making that connection. Kerry needs to WORK, not windsurf. He is losing and its his own damn fault. Im upset about it, because hes been just stupid, when he had every opportunity, but he chose to jack around like hes actually JFK married to Jackie. Like that was going to cut it. Its pathetic.
Hows about this, he just isnt into winning enough, his sports activities and 'off-time' are much more important. Thats the perception and may actually be the reality.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Sep 23 2004, 12:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Sep 23 2004, 12:49 PM
Post #19


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 23 2004, 01:08 PM)
What does that matter if it works? Does Kerry want to win or be right?

That is a good point, and I would say that one of the serious weaknesses of the Democrats in general is message - the GOP is a master of this. If you ask the average person on the street what the Democratic platform is they are probably going to give you some kind of rubbish you might hear Sean Hannity proclaiming liberals believe in on Fox News. That is why we haven't had a Democratic president in a while (and I don't count Clinton because he won on charisma, not platform).

Now as far as Kerry is concerned, he was falling prey to the exact same thing up until recently. I think that someone in his campaign has finally realized that people want to know what he stands for and not hear about the fact that he was in Vietnam ad nauseum.

But what the Democrats really need is the Karl Rove equivalent. That man, even though he is evil in its purest form, is the master of his game. I don't know why the Demos can't hire or find someone like this.

QUOTE(Artemise)
Personally I am tired of seeing Kerry windsurfing and engaging in all sorts of leisurely activties, because I am not afforded the luxury to be week after week on some mini- vacation, and I bet a whole bunch of unemployed people arent too happy with it either because not only arent they windsurfing, they are fighting for their existance.

I just have to correct you here and say that windsurfing isn't a "mini-vacation" nor is it expensive. You can take a day lesson for about $80 and if you rent one (they are inexpensive and some places let you work for them rather than pay) you can go out on a Saturday or Sunday and get a great work out. (I know that because it is on my list of things to try and I have investigated it). Running actually isn't very good for most people and it is probably one of the hardest things on your body, especially for older folks.

Now can most of America relate to that? Probably not, because unless you live in a coastal area you aren't going to get the opportunity to windsurf and therefore it sounds exotic, but it isn't. Heck most of America probably can't even relate to exercise, we are a very fat nation these days. I can assure you that on the weekend you'll find plenty of people in Boston out sailing, windsurfing or kayaking - that is just what they do there. It is the same story where I live in San Francisco. What a candidate or president does during his leisure time should have absolutely zero relevance on his campaign. Period.

QUOTE(Artemise)
Seriously I could slap him silly for allowing himself to be photographed time after time enjoying the life of the rich and famous.

I am an avid cyclist, hiker, recently took up sea kayaking and am considering trying windsurfing and/or sailing - does that make me rich and famous too? If it does, why doesn't my bank balance reflect that?

QUOTE(Artemise)
Cube Jockey, the topic was, " Who lost the Kerry election?" I dont know if your recent comments were directed to me, and although I dont think the election is lost yet, I think talking about what is going wrong is well within the topic.

They weren't directed at you Artemise, I objected to the premise behind this topic that Kerry is going to lose the election or that he has already lost. I have absolutely no problems discussing the weaknesses of the Democratic party (there are many) or even things about Kerry that tick me off (there are many). It is the defeatist attitude behind the topic I had a problem with.

QUOTE(Artemise)
Kerry has NO connection with the general public.

And again it is all about message and appearance, it isn't about Money. I think that Bush is at least equally as wealthy as Kerry if not more so, but people don't label him that way. The reason for that is because Bush's "aw shucks, I'm just a stupid Texan" demeanor plays well with Joe American apparently (although it doesn't play well with me). Kerry has a bit of a charisma problem and he needs to work on it, he also needs to utilize Edwards more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 23 2004, 04:42 PM
Post #20


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 23 2004, 07:08 AM)
[Personally I am tired of seeing Kerry windsurfing and engaging in all sorts of leisurely activties, because I am not afforded the luxury to be week after week on some mini- vacation, and I bet a whole bunch of unemployed people arent too happy with it either because not only arent they windsurfing, they are fighting for their existance.


Artimese,

We need to put Kerry's windsurfing into context.

It was the first day of the Republican National Convention. Although Bush campaigned right through the week in eight states, the news media hammered the idea that the opponent usually cancelled appearances during the opponents convention. So, Kerry took it easy on Tuesday--windsurfing--while Bush campaigned. Kerry got criticized.

On Tuesday Bush met with a group, if I remember correctly, it was the VFW. Kerry addressed the same group Wednesday. He got nailed again for campaigning during the RNC.

On Thursday, Kerry held a late night rally in Ohio and got criticized again--this time for not having his stump speech honed to perfection.

All of the criticism came from Joe Scarborough from MSNBC on a show called Convention After Hours with co-host Ron Reagan.

In the weeks that followed, Wolf Blitzer, for example, (as late as last Sunday) keyed on the windsurfing thing.

The point is, Kerry couldn't win in Scarborough's "reporting," regardless of what he did. Part of what starts with biased sources, like Scarborough, often makes its way into the mainstream media and sticks. The line from right wing sources to the manistream media is a--the?--real danger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 21st, 2020 - 03:46 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.