Kos has really been coming down hard on Kerry

[Jesus Saves]

www.dailykos.com

[tuvor]

1. So has Atrios at AMERICAblog.

For similar reasons, I believe.

[chaumont58]

27. Perhaps you mean Aravosis at Americablog

Atrios has his own blog.

[tuvor]

28. Yeah, him.

Thanks.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

2. Who cares?

Looks like somebody is just out for publicity and to make himself seem bigger by tearing down Kerry.

Kos is an elitist ass.

[Jesus Saves]

3. Woah

[ProudToBeLiberal]

4. LOL...

yup i knew people would get jealous. People got jealous of atrios when he started to get a wider audience. Same things happening to Kos because he's successful. First of all Kos doesn't need anymore publicity. By now eveyone knows Markos. And you ask the question "who cares?" Well the people who believe in equality cares. the people who believe in civil rights care. The people who believe in the inalienable rights of the people care. We need to stop the forces of oppression. They tried to suppress black's civil rights and liberties. But we didn't let the forces of oppression win. We fought back. If YOU ARE WILLING to allign yourself with the forces of oppression SO BE IT. I will fight you all the way. Oppressive forces have tried to take our rights away. I say NO MORE. I will fight YOU.

[BeFree]

6. ROFLMAO

[ProudToBeLiberal]

9. when people don't address the problem...usuallly an admission of guilt.

Please come back to the light of civil liberties. Don't let the forces of oppression claim another son from the light. Be brave my son.

-edit- I responded with a BS response because Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off is a fucking lame response. If we were talking face to face you wouldn't say that. This is showing that you're disrespecting me. I don't appreciate that. Please apologize. Thanks

[BeFree]

14. To be honest

I would otherwise have had to post something that would have gotten deleted. I have more respect for myself, thank you very much.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

17. having respect for yourself doesn't mean you respect other people

It's like saying I treat myself well and so that must mean I treat other people well. That's not really logical is it? So respecing yourself doesn't conclude that you respect my right to express myself. Everyone has the right to express themselves. That's why this country is great. I respect your right to express yourself. So please apologize. Thanks

[BeFree]

22. If it will make you happy

I apologize.

There, you happy? Of course you misunderstood me and I don't feel like another longdrawn out never ending argument about how important Kos is or was, as the case may be. It's not important and neither is what Kos says.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

23. I accept your apology nt

[Mass]

51. Would be nice if kos was interested in our civil liberties

kos does not. It took him three days to post his post, which shows how much he cares.

As for DU, this issue has been discussed all this week-end. If Jesussaves wants to post something on the issue of civil liberties, he is welcome. This post is for Kerry bashing goals only.

[Lexingtonian]

10. Oh, stop beating that poor strawman to death

Just because Kerry is not Ideologically Correct doesn't mean he's part of the opposition. There is no 'aligning' with 'the forces of oppression'.

Kerry is definitely upsetting people who only see things in black and white. The idea that he's just telling Democrats to cut down the rhetoric to accommodate deserting Republicans, not actually telling anyone to change views or actions...just why does that not occur to anyone???

[ProudToBeLiberal]

12. wait are you saying that...

wait are you saying that people who advocated for slavery weren't oppressors? What were they liberators then? Are you saying that the people who argued that blacks are inferior are not oppressors, but freedom fighters? THAT'S BULL SHIT. and you know it. a spade is a spade. an oppressor is an oppressor. People who want to deny people their civil liberties are the forces of oppression. Don't sugarcoat it.

[LittleClarkie]

15. You might want to get rid of your DFA avatar

if you feel so strongly about this.

Since Kerry's stance isn't all that different from Dean's:

"Dean, the former governor of Vermont, drew a strong following from gay activists across the country when he took a lead role in pushing through the Vermont Legislature the nation’s first civil unions bill. But when he ran for president last year, he disappointed some gay activists by declaring his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying he preferred that Congress recognize civil unions laws passed by the states."

http://www.washblade.com/2005/2-18/news/national/deanwoo.cfm

Or doesn't it matter that Dean doesn't support same sex marriage either?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

20. ahhh but kerry flipped flopped for political expediency

I would respect someone who I disagreed with if they made the decision on principle. For example Russ Feingold, I have somethings that I disagree with him, but I know he's doing it for principle and not political expediency. Dean has held his position since the beginning. Even in Vermont he decided to do civil unions and not Gay marriage. So Dean is consistent unlike Kerry who again flip flops.

edit-btw DFA doesn't stand for Dean for American it stands for Democracy for America. Thats why there is the 2.0 there. Thank you very much

[LittleClarkie]

21. THE LAST THING I NEED IS RW MEMES FROM MY OWN SIDE!!

He. is. not. flip. flopping. on. this. issue.

You. just. haven't. been. paying. ATTENTION.

Whether it's for political expediency or not is open to interpretation. Where you see pandering, others see personal conviction.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

26. LittleClarkie I apologize. I'm sorry.

The Washington Times' accusation that Kerry flip-flopped on same-sex marriage included the charge that, after opposing a Massachusetts constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, "ow, inexplicably, he supports the amendment." But the Massachusetts amendment that Kerry now supports is different from the amendment he has opposed in the past, in that it allows for civil unions.

Kerry signed a letter in 2002 -- along with other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation -- expressing opposition to a Massachusetts constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that would have, according to the Boston Globe on February 12, 2004, "outlaw gay marriage and, potentially, civil unions." As the Globe reported in the same article, "Kerry's campaign said yesterday he has consistently opposed gay marriage while also rejecting legislation, such as the 2002 amendment, that he believed threatened the civil rights and recognition of gay relationships, because it was so broadly worded."

On February 26, the Globe reported that Kerry said he would support a Massachusetts amendment banning same-sex marriage only if it, unlike the 2002 bill, would allow civil unions: "'If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection,' the senator said. ... He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407200009
______________________________________________________________
Kerry is consistent. I didn't know he was opposed to the 2002 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because it didn't include a provision allowing for civil unions. Now I understand. I'm really sorry.

[LittleClarkie]

29. I gratefully accept your apology

Thank you for looking into it. And thank you for being big enough to admit the mistake.

That'll teach ya to take the Moonie Time's word for anything ;-)

[Adelante]

59. Nice, very nice

And refreshing to see here on DU :toast:

[AuntiBush]

44. When he was lied to, like the rest of us and changed votes

I hardly call that "flip-flopping," rather a man with enough courage, dignity and devotion for 'we the people' to change his mind.

Sorry, but I don't like the term "flip-flopping," as it is what the Swift Boat Liars used to derail Kerry in the ground.

Remember, our politicians are only human, just like you and I. They can't please everybody all of the time, anymore then we can please half of the people half of the time, as well.

I think we're just all under a lot of eerie pressures right now, and need to stick together here. "United We'll Stand." "Divided... well, we're gonna fall," and "they win."

Let's not let "them" to that to us. :)

[fujiyama]

45. Sorry

I have my criticisms with Kerry (and would have smacked him for his "voted for before against" thing), but he has been completely consistant with his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even when he voted AGAINST the DMA in '98 (or whenever it was passed), he stated his beliefs.

Do I agree with him on this? No, but I don't like people distorting his record and using RW talking points on his record.

[Lexingtonian]

46. Hundreds of thousands fought to free the slaves

even though they weren't abolitionists, in many or most cases even neutral about the whole question of slavery. They did it anyway. To them the general barbarity and violation of trust and covenant and civilization the Confederates stood for was reason enough, the particulars they didn't feel competent to deal with. They died by the hundreds of thousands, and as a result of their sacrifice all slaves became free.

Do the Civil War soldiers count as "forces of oppression"? Aren't you falling into the "if you're not with us, you're against us" theory of the faithlessness of the world?

I'm of Top Gun theory: when it is time to go out to battle, there are people you are willing to be led by and (conversely) willing to lead, and others you are not, and that is all we really have when real bullets are fired in anger. All theories go out the window, only passion and ability remain. To be so narrow minded and fearful of the result that no diversity of opinion and conduct can be tolerated in the ranks...isn't the battle for freedom already lost before the first shot is fired, or at least not yours to win, if you can find no trust in your comrades-in-arms in your heart?

Today we're fighting the third and final round of the Civil War- the first got us the 13th Amendment, the second the 15th fulfilled, and now the fulfillment of the 14th is at stake. Your purity and idea that everyone agree to a mantra is a nice idea, but it's too much of a luxury to take to the battlefields. We'll be out there in the blood, lead, and mud because the cause is just, not because the leaders speak the ideas. There is a whole 14th Amendment to apply to every sector of society and no need to quibble about the details or the earnest at this stage.

[wisteria]

35. Oh Please!

Explain why we should or would be jealous of Kos. I wish him all the success in the world. I just think he needs to be more "fair and balanced".

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. He's arrogant, too

He claimed responsibility for elevating Dean to DNC chair. What a pretentious son of a bitch. He throws out crackpot theories with no proof that serve no purpose other than to divide Dems and splinter them into factions. He's Rove's dream come true.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[incapsulated]

7. It's a bullshit criticism

If someone as an issue with Kerry because of his stance against gay marriage, fine. I certainly disagree strongly with it.

But this accusation that he has "flip-flopped" on the issue is false and unfair.

Yes, was against a federal amendment in 1996 that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. And that is still his position. He has said he is afraid such a draconian move would be a slippery slope down the road to rolling back any civil rights that gays have managed to gain, and that it would be a threat to future civil unions, which he supports.

What is the huge beef?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

8. umm not has far 2-3 heres ago actually.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-11-kerry-gay-marriage_x.htm

[incapsulated]

11. Not sure what your point is

He supports a limited ban in the State of Massachusetts ONLY if it provides for civil unions.

He did not and does not support the federal amendment banning gay marriage.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

13. ummm

.... just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.

And when Kerry opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the "politics of division."

cough flip flopper

[incapsulated]

18. It all depends...

On whether he was, in 1996, being consistent with his position now: yes civil unions, no gay marriage, no sweeping bans without civil unions.

All I've read are some statements that may sound like he is favoring gay marriage, but are taken out of context. If at that time his argument was the same as it was today, that it went too far, then it isn't flip-flopping.

From a 1996 floor speech:

"It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans," he added, while noting his own personal objections to gay marriage.

Now, it could be that he's moved to the right, and "some may say" for political reasons, is now supporting "limited bans" for "electablity".

I'm not ready to make that leap without knowing more, myself.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Sounds like what he's advocating now

where's the flip flop.

He's against DOMA, and figures each state should figure it out for themselves. For his individual state, he'd rather a civil union provision rather than a same sex marriage one. I listened to a speech where Kennedy said he also supported civil unions over gay marriage.

When Clinton told him he needed to come out against DOMA, he wouldn't do it.

The difference was, and has been, the federal versus the state. He's against FEDERAL legislation, but not STATE legislation. As in the STATES deciding for themselves.

Again, where IS the flip flop.

As with my argument last week in favor of Dean, disagree if you must, but DO NOT misrepresent. That's just wrong.

[ginnyinWI]

16. before the election,

I remember Bill Clinton wanting Kerry to come out in favor of banning gay marriage--and he would not do it. Even to gain some votes. That's called having principles, in my opinion.

[wisteria]

32. Your article proves Kerry has been consistent.

His position has always remained that he was for equal rights through civil unions. That he came out against a 1996 piece of legislation crafted by republicans that denied civil union equal rights and criminalize gay marriage does not surprise me. Also his signing of a letter in 2002 opposing a Mass. constitutional amendment definning marriage as between a man and a woman is similarly consistent. The constitutional amendment did not mention civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage and Kerry was concerned about the civil rights issues. Barney Frank stated John Kerry has always made it clear to him that he did not support gay marriage, but was for civil unions with equal rights.

[harpo]

24. my beef with Kerry is that he didn't count EVERY VOTE!!!!!!!!

[LittleClarkie]

30. Sorry, right now it's just the gay votes we're concerned with

Perhaps there's a "Why didn't he count every vote. Why? Why? Why?" thread in the election forum. Here we're beating our little titties over something different.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zann725]

43. How do we know he still isn't? "Discovery" and litigation takes long.

And last I heard,the cases in Ohio are still proceeding.

I like the man I voted for A LOT. At times his actions puzzle me, but I can't see the "whole picture" he does. Overall, he's still pretty amazing.

And I think a real surprise from all the under-stated "preparation" will surprise all in the next few months.

[Spiffarino]

25. I just wish Kerry would get on the right side of history

Who the hell cares what the "majority" thinks? When you get down to it, most thinking people don't really care if guys want to kiss each other. It's a frightened band of superstitious twits who think gay love is going to bring on the wrath of Gawd.

Most people are concerned with jobs, healthcare, security, family - stuff that matters. Taking the high road is what will lead us to the place we want to be.

I worked hard for Kerry's campaign in '04. I won't do it again.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. So who's your gay-marriage supporting candidate of choice?

Dean? Oh wait; he's against gay marriage too. So are a great majority of Dems. If this is a make or break issue with you, the Democratic party may not be the place for you; just saying.

Kos is just an immature child with gross double standards. Nothing more, nothing less. His "insight" leaves much to be desired and he's only as popular as he is because he attracted lots of Deanies in 2003-4 (perhaps because he was a paid Dean "consultant?")

[Spiffarino]

54. Excuse me?

I don't really give two fucks about what Kos or any other blogger, pundit, or TV talking head says. It's about staying the fuck out of people's business. It's about people's fundamental right to live their lives without a group of assholes coming down on them because they feel "uncomfortable" about their private behavior.

Is it a make or break issue for me? If by that you mean will I vote against a Democrat who is unsupportive of gay marriage? Not if it means losing to a bigger asshole. But if I have a choice between a Kerry (D) or a Kucinich (D), I really DO have a choice because - surprise! - one of them doesn't give a fuck if gays want to get married!

Just sayin'.

[mattclearing]

36. Still reading Kos?

Weren't you warned about him?

[mattclearing]

37. And another thing: Kerry deserves it.

It's a dumb position, and a dumb decision to talk about it. It can only hurt him with a major Democratic constituency, and only reinforces the perception of him as a pandering ass to people who are inclined to think that of him.

[LittleClarkie]

40. What decision? He was asked a question by the Globe

he was just answering it. He wasn't pandering. He didn't elect to talk about it out of the blue.

And his position hasn't changed from at least 2002. He's against a national ban, for states making their own decisions, for Mass. as a state having a ban, against them having a ban if it doesn't include a provision for allowing civil unions.

I just wonder why the Globe felt it necessary to ask, myself.

[mattclearing]

41. I'm just saying it's bad politics and false morality.

His position is wrong, and he doesn't even know enough to try to hide it. I find it somewhat embarrassing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. If he hid it, wouldn't that be dishonest and hypocritical?

You may not agree with him, but at least he isn't hiding what he believes. My problem with Kos is his willingness to give a pass to Dean and other Dems who ALSO oppose gay marriage, while excoriating Kerry. THAT is hypocrisy.

[karynnj]

53. Bad politics? False morality?

What would you propose as a better position politically? Gay marriage is accepted by a significantly smaller part of the population. Moving to the right( which would be very much against his values - he rejected Clinton's advise to do this) would also lead to a smaller number of people once you subtract those who still wouldn't vote for a Democrat who is pro-choice.

False Morality?
I'm not sure the issue is morality, but sensibility. Seeimg that he does back civil unions with rights, there is nothing real that is different between CU with rights and marriage. This whole argument is over a WORD. (even if he only gave the reason that the country isn't ready to enact this, that would suffice. There are more important issues than the nomencloture of gay unions. He may think getting kids insured more important.

You are critisizing a man who stood up for gay rights when there were political consequences to it. He chose to be sworn in to give testimony when the issue of gays in the military was raised in 1993. He has a 100% rating over his career with the rights organization that measures this.

[zulchzulu]

38. I've never considered Kos as anything truly relevant or even professional

The fact that he wants to play some kind of Drudge mirror image is merely entertaining...at best...usually he is utterly the banally same ol' cliched lefty piehole claptrap.

Some yuck yucks every week or so...otherwise...yawn....

[LittleClarkie]

39. I just did an about.com search of all our former candidates

Kucinich and Braun: Favor same sex marriage
Leiberman: against same sex marriage with no provision for civil unions. He is, however, in favor of repealing "Don't ask, don't tell." He quoted Barry Goldwater in saying it didn't matter if you were straight, as long as your shot straight.
Gephardt: says he opposes civil marriage. What the heck is that? It sounds like he got confused.

The rest of the candidates are almost in lockstep: no to same sex/yes to civil unions.

Looking up Hillary, I find the same.
http://www.queerday.com/2004/mar/15/senator_hillary_clinton_favors_civil_unions.html

Hmm.

[fujiyama]

47. Kos just seems bitter

He seems to not have gotten over the primaries to some extent. It clouds his judgement.

I appreciate the work Kos has put in in organizing fundraising for Dems (including right of center Dems - he's usually not one to support only ideaologically pure candidates), but he still needs to move on from the primaries.

Also I agree with another poster that said he has an ego. I think that's true, as is the case with many internet bloggers on both the left and right now.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Also a short memory

if this was such a hot button issue with him, he should have voted for Nader or something. Because neither Dean, nor Kerry, nor most of our former candidates, passes the ideologically pure litmus test.

He's reacting like this is something new. Like Kerry recently changed his position to pander. All that tells me is he didn't know diddly about our former candidate to begin with.

[LeftCoast]

48. Not hard enough

I think Kos is holding back.

[Mass]

50. Yes

the sad thing is that he is using a real and serious issue for his petty business, and so are you.

Nice bait flaming post.

[Generator]

52. Is Jesus going to save us from Bush and the neo-cons?

Maybe you know. Anyhoo, you seem to be fixated on Kerry being the nation's big problem. I suggest you read the paper.

[Vektor]

55. Maybe he ought to try GOING down really hard on Kerry instead.

Kos can bitch and whimper until he's blue in the face and his dick falls off. His self-righteous ranting grew tiresome a long time ago.

[Mass]

56. Yes

and particularly, when a few posts laters, kos advocates that us women should not have fought for our civil rights and advocate against anti choice pols running on the Democratic ticket.

This does not make a lot of sense to me.

[karynnj]

60. Especialy as the Choice issue has more real consequenses

The difference between his position and Kerry's is, I think, what you CALL what they support (gay unions) with full rights. (and at this point, federal law (because of a law Kerry voted against) gives neither - federal rights.)

With choice, the difference is NOT a word, but what a woman can or can not do.

Either he considers some rights more important than others or he simply hates Kerry, who is working harder and more productively to create a positive Democratic agenda than Kos could even think of doing.

[Vektor]

61. I think he's losing it...

He sounds a little more wackadoo with each passing post...

[second edition]

57. Kos's motives are so transparent.

I can't take anything he says about John Kerry seriously.