A crazy but honest question/discussion

[politicasista]

I know many of you all have had the opportunity to meet and talk to Kerry up close and personal, but does anyone remember "the lesser of two evils" line from the 2004 election describing Bush and Kerry? I just want to ask what was so evil about Kerry? (I know there isn't anything evil!) but so many said they like his performances in the debates, but couldn't get excited to vote for him like the previous noms.

I am glad Dean is taking the 50 state strategy seriously, but is this is the kind of stuff that Kerry (and any dem would be) was up against. I posted the link at kerrygoddess' forum (to reduce blood pressures here LOL!), but again, I was wondering about this question: What was so evil about Kerry?

Or am I missing something? :shrug:

On edit: I can post the link or pm it if anyone wants it.

[rox63]

1. Absolutely nothing

I didn't sense an evil bone in the man's body.

But there are people out there who think all politicians are evil and corrupt. Therefore any choice they make is between what they perceive as a bunch of evil characters.

[globalvillage]

4. Honestly.

I had a discussion with my daughter just today. Her sister (my ex's child) told her the other day that all politicians are crooked, so she would rather not vote at all. When my daughter asked her why she thought that, she had no response.

*Sigh*. My daughter asked me how people can be so ill informed. I told her I didn't know, but CALL YOUR SISTER BACK AND TALK TO HER!!!

These kids are 18 and 21. My child knows better, but the 'crooked politician' label is so widespread, it really is keeping kids from voting.

What can we do to fix this?

[politicasista]

5. good question n/t

[Island Blue]

6. The irony of that is

people also don't seem to like it when politicians are too good and too honest. (Like Jimmy Carter was.) People thought he was a wimp and a weak leader as a president. I think John Kerry might suffer from this a little bit as well. His middle name is "Integrity" but I'm not sure a lot of folks view that as a positive.

Let's face it, sometimes Americans make really stupid choices for really stupid reasons.

[globalvillage]

10. Now, see...

Those people needed to see him at that SBA hearing Tay Tay posted yesterday.
I would not want to be on the wrong side of that JK. He was kick-ass.
Plenty of evidence that he is tough, yet sensitive, cunning, but honest, brilliant, but still pretty normal.
Perhaps people are not used to seeing all of that in one person.
Hmmm...Maybe he is an anomaly.
But he's certainly no wimp.

[Island Blue]

19. I didn't mean to imply that JK was a wimp.

That's certainly not what I meant. I know that he's tough as nails.

[Dr Ron]

2. What was so evil about Kerry?

He wind surfed.

[globalvillage]

3. He's wicked tall? n/t.

[TayTay]

7. First of all, ask any questions here.

If you are not comfortable asking questions here, then something is wrong and we should fix it. You see and hear what you see and hear and no one has the right to tell you differently. I actually feel quite honored that you trust us enough to come in here and ask questions that make you feel a little queasy. It shows that you might view this group as a place to go for both answers and reassurance. Both things are traits that should be cultivated. Ask away, my dear, ask away. (Of course, that doesn't mean we have all the answers, but we can try and puzzle our way through.)

As an answer, allow me a slight diversion. Why is the GOP so desperate to connect Democrats to the Jack Abramoff scandal and to corruption? Because it weakens the argument that Republicans only are responsible for this scandal. If the Repubs can successfully convince the public that 'all politicians do this sort of thing,' then this will cancel out the Democratic cry for change. Why would we have to 'change horses' if all the horses are the same? In the next few weeks and months we will hear the Repubs scrambling like mad to convince the public that Democrats are just as guilty of corruption in this as Repubs are. They have no choice. If the public starts to believe that there is a difference and that the Repubs are the ones who are guilty in this and not Dems, then the public will be in a mood to change the makeup of Congress.

This was also the argument in the last election. There has been a constant stream of misinformation put out by RW radio and TV that all politicians are evil and that it makes no difference how people actually vote as real change is impossible. This is deliberate on the part of some people and picked up by a lot of the lazy press. Who benefits from this? In the last election, the argument was made that if both candidates are the same, then why change the occupant of the office. This is a 'the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know' argument and it is patently false. I believe this extremely unhealthy argument is fed by the Washington press corp which is afflicted with a malaise that makes them think that they are superior to all elected officials and have the right to sneer at them. (I heard this countless times during the '04 campaign. Pundit after pundit would come on TV and sneer at the Dems and at Sen. Kerry and sneer at the very idea that he could be serious about bringing change to government. Sigh, that is maddening. Check out just about anything written by Dana Milbank of the WaPo for confirmation of this. He truly believes he is above every politician in DC and that attitude is just awful.)

We are all familiar with the misinformation and outright lying that went on in '04 about Sen. Kerry. That misinformation was put out in order to diminish the man and make it look like he was all ambition for personal reasons and out-of-touch. That is the kind of thing that feeds this attitude in America that all pols are the same. Again, we know this is not true. (What would the Supreme Court look like with a different President. That alone shows they are not alike.) Again, who benefits from this attitude that depresses the vote by making people think that they are powerless, that good people do not run for public office and that we are incapable, as a nation, of making change? Answer that and you can answer why this attitude is so prevalent. It acts to preserve the present power structure. (And it is a lie. Change is always possible, though difficult. MLK knew this. Rosa Parks knew this. The women who suffered so that I could have the right to vote knew this. But those people changed America as we know it and it is change itself that the negative attitude is in place to stop.)

[politicasista]

8. Thank you

No, I am comfortable asking anything here I just know many have very thin skin when it comes to Kerry getting bashed or attacked. I like it here. :grouphug: TayTay, you rox and GV answered it clearly. It's was just so frustratiing to hear some (undecided or not) vote "for the lesser of two evils" and not directly for Kerry.

I remember Rev. Al Sharpton saying the same thing. That their wasn't that "fire" that made people go out and vote. Isn't it tiring to hear those who were ABB say that Kerry got more votes than any other Dem nominee cause we all just hate Bush so much. I was just wondering was that another Rovian title or what. Just what was so evil about Kerry.

Thanks for you and everyone's input so far. :hi: :grouphug:

[Vektor]

9. He's devilishly handsome?

Criminally sexy?
Sinfully studly?


There was nothing remotely evil about him except he was hellishly hot.

He was the sweetest thing ever. I defy anyone to sit and have a beer with him and come away not liking him. All of that "evil" crap was just RW hype.

[globalvillage]

11. You forgot

Fiendishly fine.

[Vektor]

13. No I didn't...

:evilgrin:

How could I forget that? :-)

I didn't forget iniquitously irresistible, either...

[Mass]

12. A lot of myths have been reported concerning the 04 election compared

to the 92,96, and 02.

First of all, what does "the lesser of two evils" mean. This has been said in all elections. This was said for Clinton, Gore, ... A lot of people do not think that the choice of a president will make a difference in their lives. They dont vote. Some think that a candidate will be marginally better. They choose him but are not totally behind him. It would have been my case with Edwards, for example. All candidates have supporters who think that. There is nothing wrong, abnormal about that. If anything, candidates need a lot of these voters in order to vote.

The only issue is to know if really Kerry had more of these voters than Clinton or Gore. Two remarks:

1/ First, consider more people voted for him than for Clinton (a lot more) and Gore. So, it would not be surprising that he attracted more non-excited voters, just by simple arithmetic.

2/ However, polls have been made on this issue and it does not seem to be the case. On this study, you will find that Kerry's rating was as good among Democrats as the ones of Clinton.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001044.php

Three of those four general trends were ruptured in 2004. Only Kerry’s rating from Democrats followed expectations. Kerry’s mean rating from Democratic identifiers was 72 – close to the grand mean for the prior nine elections. Kerry did about as well as Clinton in 1992 among Democrats and approximated the typical score a Democratic candidate gets from his own followers. Nothing else about the 2004 candidate thermometers followed precedent.

What people often forget is that candidates are not that well known throughout the country and therefore that well-liked. They get liked or disliked after they are elected. The other difference may come from the fact you are from the South, if I remember correctly, where Gore and Clinton may have been more liked, while here, in the North East, it was not necessarily true, particularly when it came to Clinton.

So, nothing evil about Kerry. Just the fact that some people like him more or less depending of what they are looking for in a president.

But you were right to ask.

[ProSense]

14. Kerry is hell on wheels

OK, here he's just gorgeous:





:loveya:

[globalvillage]

15. Damn gorgeous.

:evilgrin:

[TayTay]

16. I like this pic.

This is from the Condiliar Rice confirmation hearing.



There is just something to that expression in his eyes.

[ProSense]

17. Beautiful!

Think if I stare at him long enough he'll speak to me? Give me a minute, I'll snap out of it.

[ray of light]

18. Lesser of two evils means only one thing...

It's a means to hide ignorance of any candidate. It's the way to vote but refuse to accept responsibility for your vote. It's a form of laziness and an unwillingness to actually prioritize the issues within your own life. It's a means of blaming the candidate and the system as well as a means of blaming others for their votes. It's also fear...fear to show people that you know nothing about the candidate, so you say, "They're all alike..." OR you say, "The lessor of two evils."

It's nothing at all poli...

[Vektor]

20. Did somebody say GORGEOUS? BEAUTIFUL? Feast your eyes on THIS:

And just try to tell me you don't want to eat it with a spoon...

[_dynamicdems]

21. I'll take a ballot thanks!

This photo makes me want to cry or vote...or both. I purchased an 8X10 of this to hang over my desk on Nov. 3rd of 2004. It has been a long, long time since I had a photo of a president on my wall. I hung a black and white photo instead and I refer to it as the "Shadow President" photo. I just couldn't bear to look at this one on my wall every day knowing why I purchased it. This is a President! Maybe I'll finally get to hang it in 2008....