Wake Up Dems! - John Kerry Was Helping the Party

[kerrygoddess]

Wake Up Dems!
November 2nd, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

Wake up Dems, because the numbers show that John Kerry was helping the party. But now some spineless want to cut him loose because he had the audacity and the courage to stand up and tell the truth. Well, that’s just the problem isn’t it? No one is supposed to stand up and tell the truth. And now members of the GOP-lite faction of the Democratic Party want to continue to cower and bow down to the Bush regime rather than grow a friggin spine and say like John Kerry has, “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Uh-huh that’s right — folks that were happy to have his help a few days ago are now hand-wringing instead of standing with Kerry. Yeah, we know we need to win the election. But, here’s the deal, John Kerry reached out to his 3 million strong JohnKerry.com community and raised buckets of cash for candidates and now some of those candidates can’t understand that he’s been swift boated again. Instead, of standing by him, we have Hillary Clinton doing BushCo’s dirty work when she says, what Kerry said “was inappropriate.” Well, Hillary, many of us are still waiting for you to apologize for your Iraq War vote. We’re not holding our breath though.

Now, it’s mighty clear to many Dems why Hillary won’t get Kerry’s back — she’s got her eye on ‘08. Well, I’ve got news for Hillary, John Kerry stood and spoke the truth to power when you wouldn’t. Rather than talk directly about Iraq, Hillary would simply rather “move on.” Hillary Clinton could take a few lessons from the junior Senator from Massachusetts, while she’s been fiddling with the notion of her next campaign before she’s even re-elected in the one she’s running now, John Kerry has been out there working to change “the direction of the country” — for candidates all across the country. So, here’s an idea — Let’s sideline him and “redirect focus.” Why? Because before John Kerry botched a joke he was all over the media, not just pissing off Republicans but also probably making more than a few potential ‘08 candidates just a little nervous. And, So What - he botched a joke. How many jokes has Bush botched (Where’s the WMD’s)?

But here’s the deal, there’s a lot of Democrats who are made as hell right now and I am one of them. Because the man who speaks for us, John Kerry — over and over again — is stepping back when he should be out there swinging for us. There’s a crop of new polls out today that show in the wake of John Kerry’s remarks, Democrats are sliding towards a victory next Tuesday.

Democracy Corps latest poll shows that Democrats are poised and ready to win, “Despite the increased titters about Senator Kerry, there is every reason to believe that this week has further contributed to making this election a referendum on Iraq.”

First, it keeps Bush on center-stage, and he is not popular in these Republican-held districts (45 percent strongly disapprove and only 24 percent strongly approve).

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4628

*** Feel free to pass this around if you agree.***

[wisteria]

1. Very good! n/t

[sandnsea]

2. LTTE in Oregonian

"If I were a U.S. soldier in Iraq, I would rather have President Bush send me adequate armament and more troops than have him send an apology from John Kerry."

http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1162517111270710.xml&coll=7

[karynnj]

9. These are great LTE - Oregon seems a very enlightened place

All three letters are wonderful.

[blm]

14. Dem "strategists" are the ones who got it ALL WRONG - most people got it right.

.

[ProSense]

23. Great comment! n/t

[Mass]

3. Thanks,

I had to yell yesterday when I heard Ford say on TV that Bush and Cheney were good men who were trying to do good for their country.

I guess once this election is over, we will have to reclaim the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

[Mass]

4. The sad part is that, by now, the issue has changed from what he said

(story that nobody except the wingnuts believe) to how he reacted. It is clear that we are now in the midlde of a hatchet job by the Democrats and no more by the GOP. (Worcester Telegram has an article on how Democrats, including in Kennedy's office, react on that, and it seems that they all want people to shut up).

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/611030663/1008/NEWS02

[karynnj]

7. Not only that they are doing a hatchet job

having asked Kerry to stay quiet - which they know Kerry will do rather than push a party fight right before the election because he is better than them. This Democratic hatchet job - after most of them didn't defend him - is suspicious considering the whole heyjohn thing.

Given the timeline, I'm not sure what Kerry could have done better - apologizing as if the RW charge had validity would have led to the CW that he actually did insult the soldiers. Apologizing for other than making a bad joke and botching it in that uncontrolled Imus showenvironment could easily have backfired. The apology as issued was fine and for the most part it ended the story.

It is the extra day caused by fighting back first that led to the wonderful Keith Olberman, editorials and some honest pundits to make the point that he in no way insulted the trrops. Long term that may help because Kerry NEEDS to counter that as having been true.

It is interesting that the Democrats are trying to add to their 2004 point that he can't respond well and ate up media time - but how many days did the Clinton temper tantrum take up. A comparison of how they affecte news is interesting.

The Clinton story took the Republican Senators deserting the President on Iraq off the news. This was then spun as Clinton speaking up. It was less than a day and a half between when the Kerry story became an issue Tuesday morning and when he apologized. - and Kerry's attack on Bush put Iraq back on the news in addition to attacks on Kerry.

(Oddly, Imus was just speaking about the Evangelical leader who is involved in a gay sex scandal - and he said if it wasn't true he would be out there screaming with outrage that it was not true. Remember they said the same things considering the SBVT.

These people who say he shouldn't have fought back first - because the RW INTENTIONALLY distorted the comments - don't have his or the party's interests at heart. The polls even show that Bush went down in the last few days on Iraq. Part of that could be the PM siding with Sadr - but how many know who Sadr or Maliki are?)

[ginnyinWI]

13. he IS better than they are.

People like Hillary should have either rallied to his defense or else kept quiet. That's what's meant by party unity.

When has John Kerry ever dissed a fellow Dem? I can't think of any time other than the joke about Edwards' youthfulness--and then he apologized to him personally. Because he's got character and integrity. And that's why we love him. Hillary is showing her lack of character. sheesh.

He was right to fight back--Imus is right. If you have the moral high ground you need to hold onto it. That creepy evangelical pastor has a deer-in-the -eadlights look, and it's pretty obvious that he's lying.

Kerry did play a small part in causing any insult the troops might have taken--but only because he flubbed the line and gave the Bushies an opening. Nobody's perfect. So for that it's ok to apologize. It's like saying something off-handedly, and the other person taking it the wrong way. You say, "Oh, I'm sorry--that's not what I meant!" But that's where it ends.

[Firespirit]

16. I completely forgot about the Edwards quip

And that was pretty hardcore mean. (The deeper point was true, but it was mean.) Now who remembers it?

This will pass.

[wisteria]

15. Oh, I totally agree with you. I will add that I still think, long term

he did the right thing fighting the accusation quickly. He was damned if he didn't and damned if he did. People have been saying he needs to come out swinging and if he ran again he needed to do just that. I think he did a lot of good fighting this right away. It shows that we will fight this administration when they are wrong. He showed that some of the party have a backbone.
If the DLCer's would have taken the que, Carville even got it, and ran with this, turning it around on the repubs, that would of been good air time. Counter punch! Ask why Bush is not apologizing, etc. Instead, some people were concerned about Kerry getting press time. They were all looking out for their own selfish interests and not the party and were willing to allow Kerry to be Swift boated again.

I also think the delayed apology made a good point in that he was defending his honor by not confirming the Repubs lies about what he said about the troops. Actually, he had nothing to apology for- period.

[ProSense]

5. Excellent! Thanks!

The RW was allowed room to trip up the strongest campaigner and fundraiser for the Democrats!

:puke:

[SouthernBelle82]

6. Good article

I'm so disgusted that so many are turning away from Kerry because of that whole thing. Even here in TN Ford did that when he was one of Kerry's first supporters in the 2004 primary and Kerry has raised a lot of money and helped Ford's campaign. Not long ago I heard Ford be asked on some show if he was going to give any of the money back to Kerry and he said "no" like he was saying "are you kidding me?" or something. *sigh* I would have thought more democrats would stand by him. :( They're all too worried about elections than the truth and standing by a friend and/or colleague.

[karynnj]

8. I suspect some are worried about the election

I have no problem with Ford - and I doubt Kerry would want him to stand by him if it compromised his position in TN.

It's others like the Clintons that I have a problem with - they may have initially over reacted, but it's clear they are continuing it even though the reality is that it didn't hurt. They want it to be conventional wisdom that it did or that they were lucky the tide was already so strong.

[cadmium]

10. Post - election will tell

I sent JK a extra KAP donation $$$ yesterday. Hillary really revealed herself since she does not face a serious challenge.

[Firespirit]

12. Hillary revealed

that she is unfit to be President of the United States.

No President should knuckle under to a group of bullies and thugs like she did. No President should fail to defend the honor of a colleague who has done so much for HER (JK hosted a fundraiser in Boston for her that raised over $150,000 for her damn campaign). No President should be WEAK as she has been. Weak and dishonorable.

[ohtransplant]

24. I wasn't a Hillary basher before

and I don't think I am now as the term implies opposition is arbitrary and automatic.

That said, she should choke on her comments. She condemned JK unnecessarily and without provocation. It was a cold, calculated stab in the back - pure politics and without honor or integrity. I hope it comes back to bite her big time.

[ohtransplant]

11. Well said.

The Democratic party missed a golden opportunity to call BS on Rs and this administration.

When JK made his initial comments on their feigned indignation, Dems should have been tripping over themselves to come to his side - to call these thugs what they are and loudly point at their many failures in supporting our troops.

If they tricked themselves into focusing on Iraq, we should have obliged them. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. It's a losing strategy for them.

I still say JK should come out strong starting on Nov 8th, and challenge * or any of his minions to a debate on supporting our troops. No contest.

[karynnj]

17. I think the challange

should be to debate what to do on Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would love it if he goes somewhere like Massachusetts to campaign before the election. The polling numbers show he did nothing wrong - I do think that he succeeded in switching the topic to Iraq.

It is also interesting that this time the Bush people and McCain and other Republicans have their finger prints on a clear character asasination - and they are getting called on it.

What I really wonder is - one of the main reasons I found this group was that the loss was compounded by the anger that the Republicans had been allowed to slander a very good person with impunity. Seeing Kerry continue fighting with the grace and dignity, dilligence and brilliance after all that was inspiring.

Is it possible that many people will see through both the RW and Democratic slander and see that the one person consistently fighting for us is Kerry and react with anger that he is being slandered again and side with him?

[Firespirit]

19. 2007 is a whole different ballgame

Gaffes happen in a primary season. It's part of the game. And, since this will have zero impact (or possible positive) on 2006, it should be viewed as a gaffe in a primary season.

2007 will be about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and reaching out to the voters in those states. Those voters won't want to hear about a gaffe ad nauseam. When they are looking at presidential candidates, they will be interested in the issues and in the candidates' plans. That's what will be discussed.

Another thing is the fact that Al Gore, who is not even regarded as running, commands the support that he does. I love Al, but if anyone ran an inept campaign, if anyone is prone to verbal goofs, it is Al. Yet they look past that and look past the fact that he "lost" 2000. Gore isn't running, but we could pick up many of the Gore supporters if we reach out to them.

[karynnj]

20. I think we could win many of the Gore people

If he's not running, I hope he does nothing for a few months, to let Kerry get beyond this.

If you look at the possibilities, only Kerry has a real environmental record. Bill clinton had a mediocre record in Arkansas and did most of his executive orders on the environment very near the end of his second term. This left us without proof that these could work and not hurt economicly. Kerry included those years in the years the Locusts ate. Hillary doesn't have an independent record.

Edwards had a mediocre record and I don't know if this is even an Obama interest area.

Kerry HAS an excellent record. If Gore is sincere in his Rolling Stone comment that he wants to make this an issue that someone could run on - Kerry might be the logical choice.

Gore's other issue has been standing up to Bush when he has shredded the Constitution. Who led the Alito filibuster and who wanted it stoppped? Who is genuinely 100% against torture?

[ohtransplant]

22. Correct on all points.

I love the debate theme. Book the hall and get JK prepped. If they wimp out and don't show - all the better.

Excellent thought about campaigning in Mass. It's a no brainer. Put the video of JK in front of cheering crowds all over the news and internets.

The message is we're unbowed and unshaken - that his message hasn't changed - It's about Iraq, a failed pResident, and a failed party. I hope he goes out this weekend.

edited: sp

[cadmium]

18. some voted for torture

so expecting them to have the balls to support JK pre-election might be asking a lot

We will have to wait and see until after 11/7/06.

[cadmium]

21. We can help JK come out better for this whole fake controversy. N/t