4-page feature on Kerry in tomorrow's NY Times

[pruner]

Storied Past, Golden Résumé But Mixed Reviews for Kerry

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/politics/campaigns/30KERR.html?ex=1070773200&en=dc6c5b500923a8ec&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

this is part of the NT Times' continuing series focusing on the candidates.

[blm]

1. Yes...so many freeps say he's a "corrupt Washibgton insider"

Freeps have no sense of history so they spread lies like this about a man who almost took down the Reagan and Bush administration.

Too bad so many believe that meme. It really helped the current frontrunner, heh?

[last1standing]

5. Did you even bother to read the article before you began the attack?

It was a pretty positive piece, at least as good as any candidate is going to get. Maybe you should try to contribute some positive, beneficial information, yourself, instead of attacking anyone you can from the Dean camp at every opportunity.

[poskonig]

6. Hey, I don't care if blm makes Kerry look bad.

:evilgrin:

[blm]

9. You missed the irony...Kerry has done great works

to uncover government corruption that are unmatched by any lawmaker alive today. So many opponents have smeared him as "corrupt" and will continue to do so, whether they read about the man's accomplishments or not.

It started with the Nixon White House, was ratcheted up during his investigations of BCCI and IranContra by BushInc., and is being continued today by freepers and unfortunately, some who claim to be Democrats.

[last1standing]

10. I've read you post in several Dean bashing threads.

Now you've taken a decent post on Kerry by a Dean supporter and have come out pistols blazing, instead of acting like a rational person and just accepting the fact that a "Deanie" is trying to say something good about a good Senator.

Kerry is a good Senator that we should all be proud of, but that doesn't mean everyone here should support him for president of suffer your wrath. I'd love to read your positive threads on Kerry or anyone else.

[blm]

11. Let's see where the

cynicism comes from. Maybe the gloating being done by Dean supporters who attacked Kerry with lies. Maybe from those who never seem to be bothered by the disgusting posts by Deanies who are so welcomed with open arms here.

Here's a sample of what I see that apparently you have not, because you find MY posts offensive yet have nothing to say about posts like these.


Northwind (644 posts)

29. Issues are irrelevant in a political campign.

Only the perception matters. Kerry is a Bush enabler and corrupt Washington insider. In case you had not noticed, that is the current great sin in politics. Being an insider, "typical politician." By 2008, it may be something else, but right now that is THE worst thing a candidate can be seen as. Kerry is seen as such, and therefore his campaign is dead. Finito. Belly up. Pushing up daises. Out to pasture. Passed on. The Kerry campaign's inability to recognize this trend and adapt to it only shows that he would be equally rigid and uncreative as President, which is why he will never BE President.
get it?
...oh, wait, of course not, you are too afraid.

[last1standing]

12. Northwind's post wasn't bashing, it was opinion.

If he was posting constantly that Kerry was a racist or that he was in bed with newt, then he'd be bashing. I don't personally agree with his perception but it is an honest opinion even if he did belabor the point.

And I have hit Dean supporters for the same thing. They just don't seem to be doing it quite so much any more. I will agree that I was getting sick of those skull & crossbones posts as well.

As for the point I was trying to make, just because you attack Dean, doesn't mean I should attack Kerry. It's self defeating. You've gone from posting information we can all use to becoming a primary partisan who is pushing people away from his candidate.

If you want to discuss, reasonably, the differences in our candidates or point out Dean's real failings, I'm all ears. I think it's good to dig up anything the repubs will, but its not a good idea to cannibalize ourselves in the names of a primary. Try to remember the end goal.

[blm]

13. I post Dean's own words and actions

and you call that attacking. I have never jumped in on any threads in regard to his personal appearance or anything else that was just plain bashing.

Northwind's post basks in the success of the lie spread about Kerry being a "corrupt Washington insider" and you call that an honest opinion? He was gloating that they pulled off a LIE. Anyone with any knowledge of the last 30 years knows Kerry is not a corrupt Washington insider, and is exactly the opposite...the one lawmaker who has uncovered more govt. corruption than any other.

[last1standing]

21. I did say Northwind was excessive.

But that doesn't excuse your defensiveness in this thread. I have alot of respect for you and your past posts, but I really wish you'd join me and some others in trying to get a handle on these forums before it breaks apart.

I know others do it too, but that isn't much of an excuse is it? Be part of the solution.

[TLM]

23. Kerry is a corrupt washington insider...

You keep trying to cling to Kerry from 5 years ago or 10 years ago to show what a great guy he is, but that same guy spent the last 3 years bending over backwards for his frat bother's administration.


He voted for IWR, the no child left behind act, the patriot act, and the 350 billion tax cut amendment... no amount of Dean bashing will change what Kerry has become.

And that is a sellout washington insider more interested in his own career than what is right or wrong.

One need not lie about Kerry's quotes, lie about material being scrubbed from Kerry's website, or even dig ten years into his past to find some half quote to spin out of context to attack him... one needs only look at Kerry's voting record of the last 3 years to see why he shouldn't be in this race.

[salin]

24. geez

another example of blind vitriol that has NOTHING to do with this thread - and only serves to fuel such VICIOUS infighting that one has to wonder if we will EVER be able to pull together on behalf of one candidate when this is through.

Can't you folks ever use restraint?

Can't folks ever stay on topic?

Can't folks ever stay on the BIG Picture - in this case... media coverage of democratic candidates... bigger picture would be to compare coverage for any major dem candidate to coverage of Bush. BIG PICTURE folks... rather than this ugly, pandering to one's own group (as it certainly doesn't persuade ANYONE else.)

[last1standing]

25. Thanks for trying to stir things up.

It was so boring just trying to talk reasonably. Why don't you bring up the skull & crossbones stuff and how Kerry and bush* were best friends and have a secret pact to take over the world?

[Octafish]

14. Go back in the archives.

You'll see blm has done as much to expose the evil that is the Bush Organized Crime Family as any DUer. blm means "Bush Loves Moonies," in reference to the close ties between the conservative-Christian right, the GOP, and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the Washington Times and many GOP politicians, including Poppy.

blm also understands that in order to take out these unelected frauds and arch-criminals requires a candidate with a unique set of brains, leadership, and experiences. blm likes Dennis Kucinich first, but agrees with me, that candidate best suited to knock off the BFEE is Sen. Kerry. BTW: blm's been saying so for almost 21,000 posts.

[salin]

15. I think the poster is just pointing out

that the negative tone of these threads has gotten so out of hand, and that some have gotten so reflexive about anticipating negative intentions from posters of another camp, that the first response reflects that negativity - even when it isn't warranted - as is this case regarding highlighting NYT big spread on Kerry.

That the tone - is belied - as there is no comment about the article which was the point of the thread. Was the article a hatchet job? Then posting it and hailing it as positive - might be fair game. Was it a fair article? THen start with that premise. Is it possible that a supporter from a rival candidate can post a story in a major media outlet that is positive about another candidate? Happens ALL the time here at DU. That is why - if we read first, then react, we can really cut out some of the tone that has already alienated some folks to the point of stating that they now "HATE" said candidate as much or more than Bush. Yikes!

I often worry about the damage, long-term, of the divisive reflexive camps that have not only developed, but have osified.

If we would first read what is posted (even if it is a skim) and then respond to it first - then add our personal commentary... some of these threads that turn ugly - wouldn't.

[last1standing]

22. Thanks Salin. That's exactly what I was saying.

n/t

[blm]

28. I know I can be a hothead...but I am a fair one

and do not lie or treat others uncivilly. The Deanies have gotten to me, and I freely admit it. They did so with posts that use lies to smear Kerry or downright vitriol and then get accolades for doing so. You can read hundreds of my posts about Dean's centrist record (which should be fair game here) and not ever see me sink to the depths they have sunk to smearing Kerry.

>>>>>>
KaraokeKarlton (1000+ posts)

I'm simply sharing my view that Kerry is basically nothing but a festering, oozing shit polyp.
>>>>>>>

[salin]

29. but that is what you did on this thread with your first post

you presumed that pruner's linking to the NYT was negative and you started firing away from that perspective. You set up for a fight.

The citations you use here to justify your language are irrelevant. Different threads, different posters.

Geez blm, read first, then fire in context. Sometimes a fight may not be necessary.

[blm]

30. The article shows that Kerry is NOT a "corrupt Washington insider"

so I used it to point to those who have painted him as such and laugh about it. It used to be only freepers who did so, angry that Kerry's investigations ruined Reagan and Bush1's legacies. Now, it's anyone with their own narrow political agenda that parrots that lie.

[salin]

32. framing it that way (the post - related to the article)

and not in a way that appears to slap the face of the person who posted it, who happens to support another candidate, would have changed the tone completely. Very simply done. Take pot shots where warrented, aim intentionally. Sometimes you and others get going that the mud is flying everywhere - and all is easily dismissed as a result. Come August - when we all have to pull together, and do so effectively - those times a few moments were taken to be a bit more intentional in language and not create rifts where they do not have to be will pay off.

[last1standing]

18. I pointed out that blm has been a great poster in #12.

I remember those posts. They were great.

[dsc]

27. Thank you

as one who has tried, and often failed, to get that message across to some of Dean's more rabid partisans on this board; I know what an uphill battle you have. I wish you luck. Your point is very valid, that poster and one other have soured me bigtime on Kerry supporters. Your candidate is better than that.

[jpgray]

2. Fairly good article on Kerry--very positive

They don't dwell too much on his campaign shakeups, and aren't very specific on his (overall excellent) record. Really dwells on the positive.

[annxburns]

3. Good, I like Kerry ...

... and I don't like to see him torn down like the last month. I hope he can get things together and run a strong campaign. He has a lot to contribute ....

[KC21304]

4. Thanks for the good article.

What a resume ! I know he will do wonders for this country as President. So knowledgeable and compassionate.

[Bill of Rights]

7. Yep, I read it

and thought it was a great article. I am a fan of Kerry. I liked his last debate performance and would be on his team if not for Clark.

[sandnsea]

8. I wish they'd write something new

I breezed through this on the Kerry Forum, seems to me a rehash of what's been written before. I wish somebody would write a real article of what this man has actually been doing for 30 years instead of the constant rehashing of aloofness and money and Vietnam.

[salin]

17. ah... expecting the current media to actually work at its reporting

when they can lazily repeat previous work... I gave up that hope awhile ago *sigh*

It is a shame - that one of the last stalwart fighters in the senate (many retired by the early 90s) - is running, and his crusades for causes that take on the power - on the behalf of those of us with little voice - never gets much coverage. I real shame. But then I have found todays media increasingly shameful, so I can not say that I am surprised.

[TLM]

16. That sounds like a lot, but remeber...

They need two and half of those pages just for his face.

[salin]

19. What?

Snide uncalled for slam about appearance?

Or broadside on lazy media who can't be bothered to do any reading up and writing of new/original material?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. Beautiful

really impressive.

[blm]

35. Oh yeah and the rest for his corrupt record, heh?

Typical. The Deanies feared Kerry so much they needed to make up smears against him...just like Nixon.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. it's a good piece

I wish it could have some positive impact for Kerry though.

[sandnsea]

26. Then it ain't so good

is it? If they'd write an article about his work on AIDS funding, early childhood education, nurse reinvestment act, oceans and fisheries, women's small business centers, glbt rights, vietnam normalization, weapons trade & money laundering, etc., etc., etc., maybe it would have had a positive impact.

[blm]

31. EXACTLY. They never get into how he exposed the Reagan-Bush corruption

either, or how those events are directly related to 9-11 and what's happening in Iraq today.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. If Kerry is not nominated

and Dean is instead, it will be one of the worst things that ever happened to the Democratic party.

[Closer]

36. Oh the HORROR!

:eyes:



:hi:

[salin]

37. that is as over the top, as another dean poster's comments are earlier

on this thread.

Boy some of you folks just love to play the drama card in absence of reality.

A few highights of some of the worst things "to happen to" the democratic party.

I would say that a certain governor from Alabama - running for president, was a quite a bit worse for the democratic party.

I would say that some dirty tricks - used to subvert the democratic primaries in 1972 was quite a bit worse for the democratic party.

Newt Gingrich taking over congress on a wave of "termlimits" appeal and taking with him some very "safe" dem seats including the Sitting Speaker of the House in 1994. This was both a case of dem strategists realizing too late what twas going on - and to a greater extent a fruition of an ugly startegy of intentionally politicizing pulpits by the Christian Coalition - a strategy that began in the mid-late eighties.

Some would claim that the nomination of politically inexperienced Geraldine Ferraro was the worst thing that happened to the democratic party as many voters could not yet bring themselves to vote for a woman on the ticket - giving Reagan the "land slide" that gave gop momentum. At the time people claimed they changed their vote not because she was female, but due to the fear of someone with so little experience being so close to the nuclear button. Of course that bogus excuse was disproven when many of those same appologists voted for a ticket that included poltical neophyte (and bright guy) Dan Quayle.

Others might argue that the liberal courts - percieved to be tied to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - that pushed issues of civil rights - was the worst thing as it gave fuel to the then struggling conservative movement.

Point being - these proclomations are all subjective. At least one of these "unprecedented damage" claims were for the greatest good (the courts supporting civil rights).

Bigger point being - a case could easily be made that the Newt Revolution, that the run for president by the democratic governor from Alabama, and the underminding of the primary process by CREEP were all much worse things to happen to the Democratic Party.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. Hardly over the top considering

the opportunity Kerry represents for ALL Americans and the humiliating defeat Dean will instead bring.

[salin]

39. just as over the top

as some of the over zealous dean fans claims.