Reply #208: I will try to respond [View All]

[karynnj]

1) and 4) I understand you don't want Kerry. There are endless threads where people are pushing candidates. This wasn't one of them. It was informational and talked of Kerry's grassroots efforts. I do understand that IOWA sets off red flags - but Kerry did the same thing at 5 events one Saturday in NJ (NJ has a June primary - we are USELESS) I went to the local event in NJ - at minimum the county now has a list (phone numbers and emails) of over 450 possible volunteers.

Another NJ location (Edison) was primarily Indian (as in India). In NJ this is a fast growing, VERY well educated group - it is great that a major Democrat spoke to them. (That it was one on the SFRC who is very well informed on Indian/Pakistani issues was a plus).

I am smart enough to know that this may very well signal Kerry wants to run again. Well, he can - and he can win or lose the nomination. I think it is fascinating that he is working so hard on building the party. He could easily take an easier path and simply enjoy life as a Senator with his wonderful family. If he gave up the idea of a Presidential run, he would likely find himself at some point in the future, the greatly esteemed Senior Senator from Massachusetts.

There is nothing in Kerry's actions that could be called ulterior motives. At worst, he is doing good things so people will look more favorably on him as a person and a possible President.

2) I understand the term "good ole boy" and was being snarky in the first comment. That said, a cursory reading of literature on Kerry would show he is not a "good ole boy" in the Senate or elsewhere. He was criticised more for being a loner (which is a strech for someone with many 40 + year friends) and commended for standing alone when he thought it was right.

3) Although I can't speak for the group, the Kerry group may be more intense than other groups, because we had invested so much hope and were bitterly disappointed - not just because Bush was still there,but for a great feeling of loss of someone we thought could make an exceptional President. We saw the CSPAN rallies, read some of the books and really saw a very unique statesman. Also, the group became a safe haven while the main forums focused all their anger on Kerry. People still will make comments about Kerry, that would likely get them tombstoned if said about Dean, Clark, or recently Gore. This leads me to sometimes be too ready to defend Kerry - when defense may not be needed. So, simple comments like yours, may get more response than they deserve. (But do you go to all threads on other candidates saying "No, Candidate X" or just Kerry.)

5) You say: "I have no convincing evidence the Kerry himself is a fascist." This sentence is indefensible and inappropriate - There is compelling proof that Kerry is NOT fascist. He has fought Fascists his entire life, possibly more consistently than anyone else I know of. (His actions against the Contras - when the very popular Reagan supported them alone should prevent this comment.) Substitute Dean, Clark, or your own name here - how do you react to the sentence?

Then you imply he was a dupe for Fascists who made him the candidate.
Kerry and people who believed in him made him the nominee. You have been annoyed with BLM's attempts to remind you that it was Kerry who pursued investigations that the powers that be and the media preferred to not have. After several years of very dilligent work, Kerry proved the contra drug running - but Newsweek simply called him a randy conspiracy buff and he was left off te Iran/Contra hearings where Congress essentially destroyed the case. On BCCI, it was only Kerry who chose to do the right thing. Think about it, if you were a fascist would you WANT to give Kerry a shot at the Presidency or would he be your worst nightmare? (As someone in the Kerry group once fantasized, which secret documents would Kerry ask for first just to satisfy curiousity if he were President? After a career of fighting tooth and nail to get them)

You might make a better case, that the problem with Kerry is that the media doesn't want things currently hidden under the rug with their complicity to come out and he is the candidate they can least control. Kerry has somehow made it through over 22 years in office without being corrupted. (He's not a saint (nor is he running to be one), but he is a very sincere honest politician).

He was not the candidate who had money or media helping him - his candidacy was near dead in Dec 2003. He mortgaged his house to get money and he won though very normal basic campaigning in Iowa.