They all have something to gain, including Bush, because Kerry is the frontrunner right now. But of course the Republican administration would never do anything so dastardly. All the stories about "Hanoi Kerry" are being put out in secret by Dean supporters masquerading as right-wing columnists.
Kerry: Interngate Redux?
- Thread starter fbg1
- Start date
I think after the primary, the BUSH folks would be definately the prime suspects. (Unless you subscribe to the old Hillary in 2008 thing).
But now? Nah. It would be just as damning now, as later. And later you know you wouldn't be wasting it on somebody who wasn't winning. Clearly, the winners in tearing Kerry down NOW would be the other nomination hopefuls.
Personally, I think Kerry would be a much worse pick for the Democrats than Edwards. Kerry has done quite a few unsavory things in the past, doesn't have a consistant voting record (certainly not consistant with what he's selling now), and he's got an attrocious foreign policy outlook (for the war resolution, against funding the troops afterward) for the centrists who support the war on terror.
Edwards is a nice guy, hasn't alienated a large block of the voting population, has a short voting history (so it can't be inconsistant), and has that southern thing going on. Of course, he's young so thats a negative. He has a much better chance with the centrists than Kerry.
But thats just me.
But now? Nah. It would be just as damning now, as later. And later you know you wouldn't be wasting it on somebody who wasn't winning. Clearly, the winners in tearing Kerry down NOW would be the other nomination hopefuls.
Personally, I think Kerry would be a much worse pick for the Democrats than Edwards. Kerry has done quite a few unsavory things in the past, doesn't have a consistant voting record (certainly not consistant with what he's selling now), and he's got an attrocious foreign policy outlook (for the war resolution, against funding the troops afterward) for the centrists who support the war on terror.
Edwards is a nice guy, hasn't alienated a large block of the voting population, has a short voting history (so it can't be inconsistant), and has that southern thing going on. Of course, he's young so thats a negative. He has a much better chance with the centrists than Kerry.
But thats just me.
RussSchultz said:
Not exactly. Attacking him now would be preferable because it makes the Democratic race closer and more competitive. They'll all have to spend more time and money fighting amongst themselves than Bush, and whomever ends up making it out stands to be that much weaker, and unable to compete against Bush's 130 million dollars of campaign funds. And it deflects attention away from the pernicious AWOL rumblings that have been growing louder throughout the past couple of weeks.
Not saying that's what happened, just that this is what would likely be motivating Republican strategists, assuming they were behind this.
Yeah i was shocked too, when i hear how old edwards was. He does not look it though.Natoma said:RussSchultz said:
Actually, Edwards is 50. Surprised the hell out of me when I found out. Kerry is about 5 years older than him.
What really shocked the hell out of me was that kerry is a jew. Not that it matters, but it really weirded me out, he attends catholic church, had a catholic annulment (or was fighting to get one). later,
epic
RussSchultz said:
I think Rove would rather have Dean or Edwards as the nominee rather than Kerry. Look at all the hoops Kerry being frontrunner has them jumping through, trying to prove Bush wasn't AWOL. With Dean, that wouldn't matter so much. Also, Bush has definite advantages over Dean in terms of security, at least to the "swing" voters. He doesn't have any over Kerry, though, just a difference of opinion on how things should be done.
Having said that, I doubt it's a Rove trick. I think this is just Matt Drudge reporting what no one else would or could. What he reported is not that Kerry had an affair, but that several news agencies are investigating the intern issue, that Clark said "Kerry will implode", and that the Democrats are in a huff about it. The other mainstream, "reputable" news outlets really couldn't report on until/unless they had irrefutable evidence of it. But someone like Drudge could easily report that such an investigation is underway. I doubt Drudge needed a tip from Karl Rove to uncover this.
fbg1 said:
Your joking right??? Edwards is quite possibly one of the best candidates in the democratic field. He is good looking, comes from a poor background, speaks well, has a younk jfk'ish type family, hasnt been in the senate long enough to have contradicted himself. Rove is more than likely most scared of edwards than anyother candidate.later,
epic
epicstruggle said:fbg1 said:
No, Edwards is also a lightweight on foreign policy and security, and his youthful appearance and inexperience work against him there. He may be a smart guy, but he's not a recognized policy wonk like Clinton was, nor a decorated war hero like Kerry. He's got nothing on Bush in that realm, but Kerry does. Further, Kerry has trounced Edwards everywhere but SC and Oklahoma, and with huge victory margins in TN and VA has shown that he's a contender even in the South. The Democatic voters don't really care whether Kerry has contradicted himself over the past 20 years (people change, few haven't), they only want someone who can beat Bush. Kerry's military record really puts Bush on the defensive, even now before the primaries are even half over. Just look at the paroxysms the White House is in right now trying to prove Bush wasn't AWOL. I seriously doubt they'd even have to mention it if Kerry (and Clark) wasn't in the race.
Yes, the Dems want someone who will put more focus on domestic issues, but the "swing" voters are also still concerned about terrorism and Iraq. Edwards has credibility with one of those issues, but Kerry has credibility with both. The nightmare for Bush would be if Kerry wins the nomination, and then gets Edwards for his running mate. Considering how up for grabs Florida, Missouri, and some of the other Southern swing states are, Bush/Cheney would have a hard time against Kerry/Edwards.
fbg1, Im not the only one saying edwards is the bigger threat. Most republican talking heads agree on the subject. Sure they arent carl rove, but they do have the same thing in common, relecting bush.
later,
epic
later,
epic
fbg1 said:
The only reason Kerry has been winning is because of the fact that people are voting with the herd. I didn't like Kerry all last year, and frankly neither did roughly 90-95% of democratic voters. All of a sudden he's wracking up double digit percentage wins? Why? Herd voting.
We're nowhere close to having a final winner yet. You need roughly 2100 delegates to win the nomination, and Kerry has 500, with Dean and Edwards around 170 each. It's far from over fbg1.
I care whether Kerry has contradicted himself, but then, maybe that's why I've flirted with Independent status as opposed to remaining a Democrat. Because I care about voting record, and the stances on issues, rather than what is the dish of the day. I find it highly hypocritical that Kerry voted with Bush on No Child Left Behind. Voted with Bush on the Iraq war. And now he's demonizing Bush for those very issues? Stomach churning hypocrisy is what I say. My boyfriend barely convinced me to keep my democratic registration early last year when it seemed that the nomination was going to be a coronation for John Kerry or Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt, establishment democrats who didn't have a spine. Then Howard Dean came along and voiced the concerns of much of the party, revitilizing us. And now, Kerry is all of a sudden winning because people think his Vietnam record will be a cureall on the national stage.
The republicans are going to have a field day with his voting record. And frankly I can't say I care if they do. Four years of Kerry would be almost as bad as four more years of Bush imo. At least with Bush you know what you get, no matter how much you despise it. With Kerry, pfft.
Edwards is the only democrat left that I believe can win the whole thing who I trust and have faith in. If he doesn't win the nomination, this is yet another voter who will leave the democratic party. The party has lost millions of people over the years to independent status for one reason and one reason alone. No one seems to stand for anything. Dean, for all his flaws, brought a spine to the party and held it firm. Edwards is the candidate imo that softens the edges of Dean's blunt style, and agitates for unity, while maintaining a consistency to his message.
Kerry? Unprincipled.
Natoma, great post. Agree completly. Also worth mentioning, is in all of kerry's stump speeches, he complains about bush's lobbyist, and kerry is doing the same thing.
Just on a side note, how did you feel about dean before his implosion? The only democrat i really liked was liberman, the only realist in my opinion.
later,
epic
Just on a side note, how did you feel about dean before his implosion? The only democrat i really liked was liberman, the only realist in my opinion.
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
The key imo to the debate is authenticity. When Kerry talks about railing against the "evil" corporations and the "evil" lobbyists, I intellectualize it. When Edwards talks about those very same issues, I feel it. Why? Because Edwards actually grew up without a silver spoon in his mouth and knows what it's like to pick himself up from almost nothing. He can speak on these issues of "two americas" with authenticity and a certain truthfulness.
Kerry and Bush have more in common than they will ever admit. Both from "blue blood" northeastern families. Both went to Yale (to my everlasting embarrassment
) and joined Skull & Bones. As an aside, a couple of members were in my singing group. It's funny that the building looks like an abandoned shell on the outside, right in the middle of campus. The trees around the building are all dead, and the ground isn't tended to at all. Anyway, the point is that when Kerry speaks to "me" with a populist tone, it just doesn't resonate as authentic, especially since he's taken more "special interest" money than any other senator in the last 12 years, and maybe ever, not accounting for inflation. With Edwards, it just hits home. That's very powerful. I can see Kerry as a VP, but not as President. I just don't trust him to actually stand for what he believes, rather than what some poll says.
epicstruggle said:
I feel about Dean before and after the way I've always felt. He got ahead because he brought a stable message that did not waiver, and was actually supported by much of the democratic party. However, and this is Dean's tragic flaw, he got caught up in his own success and imo stopped talking about his record in Vermont, where he was actually quite the moderate/centrist rather than the "fire breathing liberal" that the media painted himself as.
When the Iowa Scream Speech occurred, it was already ingrained in much of the public that the outburst was who Dean was, and nothing more. If you've followed his campaign since, he has reverted to how he was campaigning before he became successful, i.e. talking about his record and the things that he did in Vermont as Governor, while maintaining his critiques of the current administration and "washington politicians". Unfortunately for him, it was too little, too late.
In early december, I took a survey for the Dean campaign and wrote them in no uncertain terms that if Dean didn't focus on his record and governing style, he was going to lose, and lose big. It was only a matter of time. A month later, that prediction came to fruition. When he had that "gaffe" in Iowa, he had nothing to fall back on. The public wasn't really acquainted with his record, nor was it really acquainted with who Dean was. So he fell hard. The patch job he's tried to do since just hasn't helped. First impressions and all that.
Dean isn't crazy like some people think, or really even fire breathing. But he certainly did overplay his hand, and made himself unelectable.
Natoma said:
It wasn't herd voting in Iowa. The main findings from the exit polls there were that the voters wanted someone that could beat Bush, and when it came down to pulling the lever, that was Kerry. Dean was too angry, Edwards too green, Clark too unorganized, etc. etc....
Natoma said:
I don't think I said it was, and that'll be even more true if these intern rumors turn into fact.
Natoma said:
Judging by the primary and caucus results so far, you're a minority there. Most dems seem to want one thing: whoever appears to have the best chance of beating Bush.
Natoma said:
In Lieberman's defense, I think he has a spine, it's just that he happens to agree with Bush on some big glaring issues. Any Democrat that not only supports the Iraq war, but tries to run for President based on that support, when Dean has made it obvious that that's not what the Democratic base wants, is not someone who who believes in his position.
Natoma said:
And Kerry and the dems will have a field day with Bush's service record.
Natoma said:
I don't know why you trust and have faith in Edwards. He's a trial lawyer with the gift of oratory and is no less trustworthy than Clinton or any other smooth-talking politician. Despite living in NY now, I'm originally from NC and my sister just graduated from UNC Chapel Hill Law School, Edward's alma mater, where he's apparently known among the students as the school's most successful ambulance chaser. He sticks up for the little guy when he gets a lot of money out of it.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL20040120a.html
Consider this just a friendly warning. He may be more trustworthy than all the other politicians out there, but he's still not trustworthy. See beyond his image before trusting him so explicitly.
Natoma said:
Edwards? Imho, smoother-talking yet equally unprincipled.
I don't think so. As I was explaining to Natoma earlier--whats more important, Bush's past 3 years of direct experience, or what they did 30 years ago?
People who don't like what has happened in the past 3 years wouldn't give a damn if Bush was a congressional medal of honor winner, or a draft dodger.
Similarly, people who like what has happened in the past 3 years know what Bush is all about and support him.
If the War on terror is the issue, the ANG/AWOL blather is not an issue, and Kerry's "war hero"-ness is a complete red herring. Kerry is a multilateralist (i.e. offering up our sovereignty to the UN when it comes to foreign military action), actively and aggressively campaigned against Vietnam, voted against Iraq I/Desert Storm, voted to defund the troops currently in Iraq, and has sent crazy letters to the Mullah's in Iran.
There is an obvious dichotomy with what Bush and Kerry have to offer in the war on terror/foreign policy, and what medals were won 30 years ago has very little to do with it.
fbg1 said:
Iowa was an anomaly. People tired of the insipid back and forth between Gephardt and Dean, and wanted an alternative. That's why Kerry and Edwards ran away with it.
New Hampshire was expected to go Kerry anyway because of it's "home state" status. The Iowa win merely cemented his "momentum." Edwards won South Carolina by a huge margin, obviously because he was from the neighbor to the north.
But that momentum in South Carolina couldn't help him in the other primaries voting that day, who were looking at Iowa and New Hampshire, wondering who to vote for. When they looked at that, as well as all of the "Front Runner" talk coming from the media, they herded toward Kerry. Sad to say, but the vast majority of the american public does not go in depth in the political scene, and actually listen to what the candidates have to say. They see what the media tells them, and who everyone else seems to be voting for, and think "Oh he must be good."
Kerry's Vietnam record is being seen by many democrats as the cureall to beat Bush because they believe it will inoculate him against charges of being soft on defense in the fall. That is why General Clark was for the longest time seen as the savior incarnate for Democrats hungry for national security "credibility."
fbg1 said:
Yes, and unfortunately they're voting for the wrong person. There is a reason why Kerry had a 5% approval rating for all of 2003.
fbg1 said:
Did you watch all of the democratic debates? That's where I got my opinion of Lieberman primarily. I watched every single one of them.
fbg1 said:
That's only if the current WMD problems stick. If they are still relevant in the fall, and Kerry is the nominee, then this will be true. If this is, for whatever reason, no longer relevant in the fall, then Bush's service record won't mean squat.
As I told Russ earlier when he was arguing that Bush's service as president means more than that military service record, in and of itself, the service record is not the issue. It's when it's combined with the current military problems facing our nation that it magnifies the perception that Bush is an incompetant leader and needs to be replaced.
fbg1 said:
I trust him because I've followed his and the rest of the democratic candidates positions in depth for more than a year, and I've read up on his trial lawyer background regarding who he was defending.
Say whatever you will about him sticking up for the little guy, but the fact of the matter is, he does it. Everyone has to get paid. You can't live on charity alone, so I don't fault Edwards for making money while doing his work.
fbg1 said:
I have compared and contrasted their records. I have always liked Edwards, but he was not what I wanted to hear last year. I began listening to him more as time went on. Kerry has always been unprincipled in my eyes due to his voting record and his flip flopping stance on various issues.
This is a good article that highlights what I was speaking about earlier when I wrote:
Here
That in a nutshell sums up what I've been seeing in the Democratic party over the last 2-3 months. People look to Kerry and, god knows why, see "electability" even if they don't necessarily support his positions. People look to Edwards and see "electability" as well, but also have a passion for him which is difficult to describe.
Natoma said:
Here
That in a nutshell sums up what I've been seeing in the Democratic party over the last 2-3 months. People look to Kerry and, god knows why, see "electability" even if they don't necessarily support his positions. People look to Edwards and see "electability" as well, but also have a passion for him which is difficult to describe.
