Question! Why do you think no Dems have come out to back

[wisteria]

up Kerry's comments pertaining to the cultural differences that lead to the Iraqi citizens' negative perception of our soldiers? This point lends it self so well to why the Iraq's themselves should be conducting these searches.

I'm also angry because I made the mistake of turning on Hannity and hearing his daily rant on Kerry and Dean.(I think it is important to check on what the enemy is up to) Hannity is now calling on the Democratic Party to demand that Kerry resign over his "vicious lies about our troops". This is all nonsense and should be called out as such. Rove is back to his scumbag self again and is definitely orchestrating this whole character assignation. I'm thinking about contacting Reid and asking him why no one has said a thing. Seems like election 2004 all over again.

[Luftmensch067]

1. I agree!

I will call Reid's office tomorrow. Any ideas of whom else we should contact?

[wisteria]

11. I think Reid is a good place to start.

I would have suggested the DNC,but then they aren't really defending Dean either.

[karynnj]

2. So Kerry should resign for telling the truth - and Bush can lie all he

wants. Has either party ever demanded a Senator resign? Without an indictment or an ethics violation. When a year ago, roughly half the people in the country wanted him to be President. Shouldn't his state have a say in it?

Also, what were these "lies". That the soldiers are breaking down doors to houses. That is what's been reported and from Kerry's other comments it's the soldiers who think we shouldn't do this function. I agree with you the other Democrats need to speak out and hopefully some of the military. It may be that they think it should be ignored as these are not serious people. What's sick is that Kerry is out there everytime for everyone. Thank God for Max Clealand - I would guess his words meant a lot to Kerry. Some of the idiots yelling about Kerry's lack of response to the SBVT should see that the Democrats are afraid to defend each other. Few supported Durbin.

Didn't Cronyn suggest killing justices or something. Isn't this something to throw someone out for?

[wisteria]

14. Yeah, I was thinking about that too. Durbin ended up apologizing.

They bring up the troops and use them as scapegoats to promote their plans and to conduct their smear campaigns. Yet, they seem to be able to do all this and the Democrats just take it.

[karynnj]

32. I would hope that Kerry would opt instead to more completely

explain what we are doing, why it should be given to the Iraqis, Saying what Cleland did about it costing American lives and increasing the insurgency. If Kerry can real drive home this issue, it could push Bush to do it. What's interesting is that given the nature of the "war", if the Iraqis do this the need for us fades quickly.

I think this is behind the fact that they are bashing him. He has been able to explain this issue. What I wonder is when Murtha will defend him.

[Blaukraut]

3. Hannity is a blowhard

He has been demanding the resignation of various Democrats for perceived wrongdoings since he's out of diapers and able to talk. I wouldn't worry too much about Hannity and his ilk. They are only preaching to their choir.

As to why other Dems have not stood up for John Kerry and defended him - same old crap, I'm afraid.

It really looked like the Dems were growing spines for a while there. Now it appears as you said; Rove is back in the saddle, and the portable spines have been unstrapped and put away again.
It is sad to witness our Dem leadership cower in fear of this unethical prick Rove. I really think if they all stood together as a united group, there would be little Rove et al could do.

[wisteria]

15. Your right, I thought they would have figured Rove out by now.Yet,

they allow them to get away with these lies and insults without uttering a word.

[ProSense]

4. More from the wingnuts

Michael Reagan wants Dean hung. Why are these crazy people dominating the media?

[karynnj]

5. That's a good question

It's as if the whole media has shifted to the lowest common denominator which is the Limbaugh and clones set. These people are filled with hate. I briefly turned on Limbaugh when driving to get a kid and I still feel sick. Some of what he was saying was just stupid - he talked about how Kerry and Dean et al had no joy or happiness and were miserable and it was because they just wanted to destroy America (or some such nonsense.) He also claimed Kerry had no suggestions of what to do in Iraq. (somehow he missed why he was there - discussing his PLAN)

It's good that there is beginning to be some Democratic talk radio, but it's sad that this is brainwashing the country.

[ProSense]

6. Drug Rush calling someone unhappy

Oooh, I'm Limpy and I'm so much happier than those guys (pops 1,000 pills)


:rofl:

[karynnj]

9. Good point if he's so happy why does he need

huge amounts of drugs, where Kerry seems to take pleasure in life itself.

[karynnj]

7. Well, all of you going to the Kerry party

will be part of a large crowd of people letting him know he's appreciated.

[beachmom]

8. For someone who is supposed to be the ultimate "Washington

insider" or so says certain bloggers who shall remain annonymous, Inside the Beltway Democrats don't seem to give him the time of day, do they? And they definitely didn't defend him last year. When I receieved that e-mail from Kerry this week about helping candidates who were being smeared by Republicans, it was almost like hearing from a cancer survivor who wanted to help others beat the same disease. He is doing good for people and helping out colleagues and getting no recognition for this whatsoever. But even if it doesn't help his own ambitions one iota, he knows he's doing the right thing, and will be proud of it. But this makes me think, other than Cleland, where were the veterans to defend Kerry last year? Where the f*** were they? Why wasn't there a Kerry like person defending Kerry last year? The Democratic party didn't back him up, and he's trying to fix it. The more people power, the less the snarky cynical insiders will be able to run the game.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. He's the REAL populist candidate

And that's what Kos and his ilk HATE - because they need to pretend so badly that they supported the true populist grassroots candidate, and blame his loss on Kerry's supposed "insider connections" which, in reality, don't exist.

[karynnj]

13. Exactly

Had anyone tricked him early on (before they were too recognizable) by giving him a copy of a Kerry email or speech that we saw grow on felt needs and how the demand had to come from the people and said it was Dean's grass roots initiative, he would have been estatic. (I know my reaction was how does a sitting Senator, the former Presidential candidate lead a reform movement - how unique is this.)

In fairness he is an insider in that he clearly knows how things work - and has contacts in government, the millitary etc.

[GRLMGC]

12. That's the problem with this party

I've said it before and I've said it again (and I love what this party stands for), the problem with this party is that people are so willing to backstab. You can see it on this website and you can see it with the politicians. It's really irritating.

[wisteria]

16. More than irritating, it's one reason we seem to never get ahead

of the game. How can we bring a country together when we can't even bring our party together.

[TayTay]

17. Well, Sen Reed (RI) defended Kerry today

in his speech and said nice things about him. (Reed and Kerry were called the centrists in the Dems current debate about Iraq. Hmmmm.) Joe Leiberman said nice things about KErry yesterday. (ahm, okay, maybe I won't post that on GD)

The Senate is out of session this week. Wait till next week when they come back. The Hannity/Limbaugh comments are hot air and will not affect more than the converted anyway. (Remember, they are desperate to take the spotlight away from the GOP scandals and deficienies. They flat-out lied about what Sen. Kerry said and his intent in saying it. This is what the RW Noise Machine does.)

Give it time. The Senate comes back on Monday. We shall see what they do.

[karynnj]

22. Reed seems to be a nice guy

Joe Lieberman said something nice about kerry? I can't believe this will have any legs - Kerry has talked to so many people on the exact same point - it is intuitively compelling and he did a great job in some of the others in implying the problem without saying as much. My quess is Scheiffer may have been harder to draw in. (Chris Matthews seemed genuinely convinced immediately of the problem.)

I think Kerry is the left most of the Centrists. : ) But, isn't that close to what you expected when Murtha made his proposal - that it gave Kerry some cover. Where do they place Feingold?

[MH1]

23. Wait - isn't Reed mad at Kerry? You know, for

"bogarting the limelight" or something?

Hmmm...maybe not, huh?

[wisteria]

28. Oh, good one. Gee, maybe we need to let KOS know Reed

said nice things about John Kerry.

[wisteria]

24. Thanks for letting me know what Reed said. It helps a lot.

Is there a link I can go to hear or read what Reed said? What did Lieberman say? I was so angry at him for letting Rove use him, that I e-mailed him my "best regards". I still feel some other Dem's could have spoken out on behalf of Kerry today though. They did so in the negative to trash Dean today. It seems like the same group all the time though."Howard Dean doesn't speak for me."
Your post has made me feel better though- thank you!!

[Mass]

29. Lieberman was trying to say that Kerry and Reed were agreeing

with Bush's goals and mission in Iraq, but disagreeing on some details. I would not consider that as a good thing.

I dont know what Reed said in his response to Bush, but I am not surprised that he said nice things. However, I heard him today on PBS. If they call both Reed and Kerry centrists on what to do on Iraq, they certainly call a whole lot of people centrists. Reed does seem to think we are in Iraq for a while in order to do things correctly.

[wisteria]

30. Thanks for the information. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

18. "Boil on Butt" called him a liar too today

I think that will be my Indian name for him from now on. I can do that, you know. I'm 1/16th Cherokee.

He was laughing off the "donut eating draft dodger" comment. He said actually he said he eats Boston Creme, and spits most of it out. I had to fight mental images all the way to work. :puke:

[TayTay]

19. Ewwooooowh! What an image.

And I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

[karynnj]

21. He's proud of having no manners - clearly his mother didn't

bring him up well. Plus Boston Creme donuts are great - my daughter who is in MA says that the Boston Creme donuts are better there - possibly she's found a bakery rather than a Duncan Donuts.

I thought the donut eating was so perfect - because it really wasn't nasty - unlike any thing Limbaugh says and he is a draft dodger. (It's funny how annoyed they get when they have to admit he served. It's odd that they think he didn't release his records - I think He's suppose to send it to the entire country before they'll be satisfied.

[wisteria]

26. Yuck,he eats Boston Cream. He shouldn't be allowed to eat

Boston Cream.It's way to good for him. He's should be more of a sour cream man.
I see all the Rove hired hands are on the same page today carrying the message to the ignorant and faithful.

[JanusAscending]

33. Hey girl!

I'm 1/16 Mohawk so together we are 1/8th!! MORE POWER!!! "Boil on Butt" is good, but I actually prefer "Head up Ass"!!! Either one will suffice tho'!!:pals: DC (or how about "Hoof In Mouth"? )

[ginnyinWI]

20. it may have to do with not wanting to dignify the slime

with a response. That's what Hannity really wants--to be relevant! Same with Rush. He laughed off the criticism because even negative attention is still attention. They are so transparently childish.

Good for Reed--I'll have to catch the replay later tonight.

[whometense]

25. That was my first thought, as well.

The things they are saying are so patently stupid that only the terminally Faux-brained could possibly believe them. Thye're also, in a weird funhouse mirror kind of way, an obscene distortion of the things that were said about him back in the Vietnam era.

How can you argue these things? They are all straw man arguments. All you can do is roll your eyes and sigh. And Kerry is not any kind of ultimate insider, but I still think he has plenty of friends in his caucus. Teddy will always stand up for him - and I don't know that he's said anything. It's just too ridiculous.

[karynnj]

31. Buut there are differences

59 million people voted for him and more saw him in the debates. Whether Limbaugh & company wans to accept it or not, Senator Kerry is not the cartoon figure of a wild eyed hippie shouting obscenities at the military he wants him to be. He is a very serious, thoughful person who MA keeps re-electing. So, he comes into this much better known. Also, the slime thrown last year was found to wrong, so in a way throwing the SBVT at Kerry again is to be less effective.

The other difference is unfortunate. He was a media darling at least at the beginning.

[wisteria]

27. That's why I posted here. I was torn as to what was the best course

of action. Listening to O'Neil and Hannity trash JK was like reliving the 2004 election. Do you remain silent or do you strike back. I was concerned that leaving it alone would only make it fester and the media would play along. They have been unrelenting on Dean.

[TayTay]

34. Oh, they need to strike back.

Quickly and efficiently. I don't think the slime will work because the topic here is Iraq and most Americans know that the Bush Admin is lying to them about Iraq. Sliming Kerry and other Dems is just part of what the Admin does to protect it's policy in Iraq. I think people see through that.

I also think that people need to play strong defense on this. Otherwise the idea that no one is defending gets through and that would be awful.

(Does anyone else see this as two spearate things? I could be wrong.)

[karynnj]

35. I see what you mean

The big question is do we stay in Iraq and on this there are a lot of people not being honest. Kerry's points that Bush says there are over 100,000 (200,000?) trained Iraqis and that the tasks of policing and search and destroy are not equivalent to fighting WWII lead to the obvious question of why the Iraqis are not being given these functions.

A cynical answer is that we don't want them to as it would give the Iraqis some real power. Not doing this does make this an occupation. Saying either of these things, is politically dangerous. The anti-war movement, if it could get over it's own vanity, should be trying to explain this. To my knowledge, Kerry is pretty much in front on demanding this change in policy. (Murtha is implicitly asking the same thing. If we're gone, we're not policing.) It would be nice if the anti-war movement, would try to fight this issue rather than quibbling over who apologized when. (It seems clear that the reason the press is continually pushing those questions are succeeding in distracting the very distractable left.)

[ProSense]

36. Good points

Apologies---admission of wrongdoing (because that's what they want)---shouldn't even be in the equation. Make it clear: no occupation (no permanent bases). That requires a change in policy, not a shift in strategy to try to maintain the occupation. It's not about how to occupy; it's about how to leave.