PDA

View Full Version : Kerry's quiet on Iraq stirs worry within party



Laisrean
May 14th, 2004, 04:35 PM
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/polman/8643822.htm


John Nichols, a liberal analyst, is worried that Kerry's campaign "really is in trouble" and that Kerry will become "the Bob Dole of 2004," a reference to the career Republican senator and war hero who plodded through the '96 race speaking in legislative lingo and wound up pitching Viagra in retirement.

Does this mean it is time for the Dems to throw in the towel on Kerry and perhaps back Nader?

Dark Phoenix
May 14th, 2004, 06:34 PM
Unlikly but from what I have heard certin elements in the democratic party don't want Kerry to win and the way Kerry is going he won't unless ge pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

Shanti
May 14th, 2004, 06:51 PM
We cant have another 4 yrs of bush, he'll kill us.

punxzen
May 14th, 2004, 07:26 PM
We cant have another 4 yrs of bush, he'll kill us.
:lookaroun

im leaving the country if that happens :excuseme:
:twitch: :twitch:

edited to clarify: no i wouldnt really leave if bush was in for another for years, but i figured since i would like to backpack through europe and asia, i might as well do it before i get drafted. but like so many things in my life, i dont really care either way. if i stay, ill most likely join the air force and do some para rescue service. sorry for the confusion, i forget that there are people who might actually do something like what i mentioned. i thought it was just a joke :p

SH-AA
May 14th, 2004, 07:50 PM
I've heard this mentioned before, and it probably has to do with the fact that if he makes the election about Iraq/terrorism, he's pretty much gonna lose. So, he probably wants it to be just about anything else possible.

Phoenix Blue
May 14th, 2004, 08:25 PM
Why does Kerry have to say anything about Iraq right now? Sometimes, silence is the way to go. . . let the Bush regime hang themselves!

Autumn
May 14th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Why does Kerry have to say anything about Iraq right now? Sometimes, silence is the way to go. . . let the Bush regime hang themselves!
They really are doing an excellent job of hanging themselves...They need no help...
It is a long time between now and November and Kerry will, if he wins have the politically poisonous job of getting us out of Iraq and back into the worlds good graces...

I will be saying this until November ad nauseum...

:grrrrr: Don't vote for Ralph Nader unless you want 4 more years of Shrubby!!!:grrrrr: :grrrrr:

SilverMaiden
May 14th, 2004, 11:11 PM
Although it is in the best interest of the United States and the world to not have Bush, his administration and an irresponsible Congress for another four years there comes a time when people have to learn to see again.

America is blind in many areas. Our politics even more so.

Kerry's been vocal about how he views the war in Iraq. He's been vocal about how he views foreign policy by this administration. He's stated his recomendation for change in the Department of Defense (darn good ones I might add. I like McCain and Warner both.). How many times does he have to repeat it before america actually pays attention and retains it?

It's not just about Kerry but about all the candiates too. The top 3 get a lot more press because of money. It's the same stuff. Puppeteering and orchestrating for perception of a population that is utterly gullible. Market Spin to the max.

The whole political competition is truly an utter joke. It's geared to a population that is seen as being toddlers that need constant reassure, constant sound, constant repetition. That's not good of America.

If Kerry's being quiet on Iraq after already stating his views a zillion times over causes fear and worry, than maybe the United States deserves four more years of what we have had and a few more wars.

It's time America grew up, stopped being manipulated and paid attention.

America needs to learn to vote it's conscience, based on an honest informed decision and stop being manipulated. Only then can we actually make any progess as a nation.

Although I'd love nothing more than to see this administrations' ilk out, a part of me thinks America needs to hit rock bottom. It will suck hitting rock bottom but eventually we will crawl out. Then we get on with moving forward instead of backward.

Lady Andais
May 15th, 2004, 12:53 AM
When rock bottom hits i may be moving my happy self and my family of pets across the borders and leaving personally. I don't know how much more i can take on this crap. So any one know of a good country with decent foreign policy that needs accountants and police offices that also have decent health insurance let me know cuz i shall be moving there if Shrub comes again.

Garnet
May 17th, 2004, 10:29 PM
12 years ago, Clinton didn't have much to say about the (first) Iraqi war. He focused on the economy the way Kerry is doing & beat Papa Bush.

pawnman
May 18th, 2004, 08:05 AM
im leaving the country if that happens

See ya later. If you have such little faith in the system of government that you would leave over Bush getting re-elected, maybe you should just go now. Because even if Kerry wins this time, then in 4 years it'll be "If Bob Smith wins the election, I'm leaving the country".

Didn't alot of celebrities make this statement about leaving when Bush was elected in 2000? Aren't they all still here?

Anyway, I suspect that the Dems not giving full support to Kerry is a bid to put Hilary Clinton in the 2008 race. Can't do that if the president in 2008 is a democrat. And that would be a disaster for all of us (Hilary getting elected, I mean). I'm all for a woman president, but not Hilary "Socialized medicine" Clinton.

Kadynas
May 18th, 2004, 08:28 AM
It's kinda funny, but a letter to the editor said this race would be a lot more interesting if it was Laura Bush versus Theresa Kerry both running for President! :) And I think I agree! :lol:

pawnman
January 20th, 2008, 11:20 AM
See ya later. If you have such little faith in the system of government that you would leave over Bush getting re-elected, maybe you should just go now. Because even if Kerry wins this time, then in 4 years it'll be "If Bob Smith wins the election, I'm leaving the country".

Didn't alot of celebrities make this statement about leaving when Bush was elected in 2000? Aren't they all still here?

Anyway, I suspect that the Dems not giving full support to Kerry is a bid to put Hilary Clinton in the 2008 race. Can't do that if the president in 2008 is a democrat. And that would be a disaster for all of us (Hilary getting elected, I mean). I'm all for a woman president, but not Hilary "Socialized medicine" Clinton.

THREAD NECROMANCY!!
Was I right, or was I right?

Laisrean
January 20th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Yeah, you may have been right. There was a theory she didn't run in '04 because she wanted to wait until her chances of victory were excellent, and back then Bush still had a decent level of popularity. Of course, that popularity vanished after Katrina, but that happened the year after this race.

banondraig
January 20th, 2008, 06:42 PM
THREAD NECROMANCY!!
Was I right, or was I right?

I don't know. Kerry himself has endorsed Obama.

Philosophia
January 20th, 2008, 06:49 PM
THREAD NECROMANCY!!
Was I right, or was I right?

Not really.

Laisrean
January 20th, 2008, 08:12 PM
Not really.

Please elaborate on that.

Philosophia
January 20th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Please elaborate on that.

Why?

Laisrean
January 20th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Why?

You said he wasn't right, but I can't see why you would think that.

Philosophia
January 20th, 2008, 09:04 PM
You said he wasn't right, but I can't see why you would think that.

I never said he wasn't right, I said "not really" which means he's not right but he's not all wrong either. He would be fully correct if the Dems were 100% behind Hilary but they aren't. I don't doubt that Hilary was aiming for 2008 but I do doubt that the Dems were going for that.

pawnman
January 21st, 2008, 12:37 AM
I don't know. Kerry himself has endorsed Obama.

I didn't say Kerry was sandbagging so Clinton could have a run. I said the democratic party sandbagged him so Clinton could run in '08.

Laisrean
January 21st, 2008, 01:07 AM
I never said he wasn't right, I said "not really" which means he's not right but he's not all wrong either. He would be fully correct if the Dems were 100% behind Hilary but they aren't. I don't doubt that Hilary was aiming for 2008 but I do doubt that the Dems were going for that.

Okay, I understand now. But even so, I think Hillary's support is higher than Kerry's was back then. If it wasn't for Obama then she'd be monopolizing the polls left and right.

I think if and when Obama drops out the Democrats will unite behind her banner. I don't think there will be as much voter apathy as there was when Kerry was running. In Hillary's case, people seem to either love her or hate her, and there isn't too many who are just plain indifferent. When it came to Kerry, I think almost everyone disliked him, but they might have backed him for being the "lesser of two evils" when up against Bush. That was pretty much all Kerry had going for him, and apparently it wasn't enough.

banondraig
January 21st, 2008, 01:12 AM
I didn't say Kerry was sandbagging so Clinton could have a run. I said the democratic party sandbagged him so Clinton could run in '08.

Possible, although it seems a great deal more organized than they seemed to me at the time. Honestly I find it easier to believe that they were just having a lousy campaign cycle.

Laisrean
January 21st, 2008, 01:21 AM
I didn't say Kerry was sandbagging so Clinton could have a run. I said the democratic party sandbagged him so Clinton could run in '08.

George W. Bush is the best thing to happen to the Congressional Democrats in a long time. They could have impeached him, and they still could impeach him, but they havent; and they won't. Why? Because he is their ticket to controlling congress. They love having him as president so that whatever goes wrong can be placed on his shoulders and not theirs.

This would not be the case with a Democrat president, because then the Democrats would be the target of criticism for everything that goes wrong. Bush is their scapegoat. Thanks to him, voters aren't fully aware of how corrupt and ineffective they are. There's no need to be a good politician when you can just fall back on the tried and true "but the other party is even worse" defense.

Philosophia
January 21st, 2008, 01:48 AM
Okay, I understand now. But even so, I think Hillary's support is higher than Kerry's was back then. If it wasn't for Obama then she'd be monopolizing the polls left and right.

I absolutely agree.


I think if and when Obama drops out the Democrats will unite behind her banner. I don't think there will be as much voter apathy as there was when Kerry was running. In Hillary's case, people seem to either love her or hate her, and there isn't too many who are just plain indifferent. When it came to Kerry, I think almost everyone disliked him, but they might have backed him for being the "lesser of two evils" when up against Bush. That was pretty much all Kerry had going for him, and apparently it wasn't enough.

I seriously hope that Obama doesn't drop out. I think he has a good chance, especially with the chaos of the republican party right now and Bush's low approval rating. Hilary will play on the female card whilst also trying to win approval of the liberals (which isn't occurring right now). IMO, Kerry was bound to lose that election. The Iraq war and the Bin Laden tape (that conveniently was released just before the election) signed his fate in losing that election and gaining Bush the victory.

Laisrean
January 21st, 2008, 03:06 AM
IMO, Kerry was bound to lose that election. The Iraq war and the Bin Laden tape (that conveniently was released just before the election) signed his fate in losing that election and gaining Bush the victory.

And don't forget the Swiftboat ad.