Has Anyone Considered That Kerry Knows He's Losing

The ten Republicans marching in S.F.? Laughing

0 Replies

Frank, as a registered independant, which Republican/Bush policies do you endorse?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank, as a registered independant, which Republican/Bush policies do you endorse?

Name a few....and I'll give an opinion.

Are you doubting that I am an Independent? (Which takes a capital "I", by the way.)

0 Replies

Just that I have yet to hear you espouse anything even remotely republican. You can be an Independent and still spout the Democratic party line.

I do not doubt your veracity on anything frank. You are one of the most honest people I have spoken with online.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just that I have yet to hear you espouse anything even remotely republican. You can be an Independent and still spout the Democratic party line.

I do not doubt your veracity on anything frank. You are one of the most honest people I have spoken with online.

My feelings on gun control and capital punishment are much closer to the conservative/Republican "line" than to the liberal/Democratic one.

I'm sure the seven members of our local town council...and the mayor...(all Democrats)...would be more than willing to testify that I do not follow the Democratic party line...and that I am indepent minded all the way.

In fact, I am very, very sure of that.

The contention between them and yours truly has, at times, been carried out on the front pages of local newspapers...and on several television channels.

0 Replies

Oops...

...I meant to thank you for that final comment of yours, McG.

Hope you get up New York way some time. We'll have a drink or several...and laugh at some of the hard times we've given each other.

0 Replies

Kerry hasn't done a very good job of defining himself or distinguishing himself from George Bush by playing to the center on most issues. His only hope now are the debates.

Not only does he need to define himself with clarity...he needs to club Bush like a baby seal to have any chance of winning. And he can't just win...he has to win BIG.

Campaigning on -- Vote for me I'm not George Bush -- will only get you so far. Whether people want to admit it or not, capturing Saddam Huessin is a very big feather in Dubya's cap towards re-election. Probably to big to overcome for someone who is perceived as indecisive.

0 Replies

Louis Harris has Kerry ahead.

He considers the stats on a daily basis.

So should you. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Spew hate, ignore the issues, shout the party line, and avoid any pretense of having an open mind.

One, I do not spew hate; two, I never ignore the issues; three, I'm a registered Indepenent, so I cannot shout the party line; and four, I am extremely open minded.

Quote:
Gosh, remember all those Repubs marching in New York and San Francisco when Clinton ordered the US military in Serbia? Remember all the Repub newspaper reporters and columnists who did everything in their power to undermine Clinton, and thus let the rest of the world know that he doesn't have support?

Oh yeah, that didn't happen.

Well...if you really want to bring up Republican conduct during the Clinton years, that is your prerogative...but I goddam near choked with laughter when I read this sentence.

You are a card.

No matter what the Dems do to Bush...they will never, never, never even come close to the kind of bullshyt thrown at Clinton during his time in office.

Outstanding! "I do not spew hate." HaHaHaHa. 'Nuff said on that.

Being somewhat new to this board, I now see that you are the resident curmudgeon, so I recognize that this is your shtick.

You seem to have missed some of my main points, and curmudgeon or not, you didn't comment on them; why not? Maybe because I was right?

Frank, you are about as much of an Independent as James Jeffords is in the Senate. (Unless you really are an "Indepenent" as you stated. Is that a new political party? HaHaHa). How about addressing the points I made earlier, which you conveniently overlooked?:

What is your opinion of Reagan and the issue of the cold war?

Why didn't the Left protest, march, and undermine Clinton upon his military action into Serbia, as the Left is doing now to Bush? The Right certainly didn't do that to Clinton. You didn't answer this the first time; want to give it another try?

How about my comment: "If the Repubs were rallying the discontent and hatred in WWII that the Left is right now, we would have never entered that fight and England would have a decidedly Prussian slant in 2004." You avoided answering that one, didn't ya?

Like most narrow-minded people, you fail to address any issue in which your opponent might have a point. Are you going to address these issues, or is it more of your style to just take shots at people with whom you disagree?

Quit letting hate prevent you from being objective. I do not like getting into flame wars, as nothing productive ever results. So after you take your shots at me, try to answer my questions so we can discuss issues.

I, in turn, will not take returning shots at you, and we can discuss this?

0 Replies

I must take exception here. I happen to be the ranking curmudgeon hereabouts. Should any doubt that, note my join date, number of posts, and most particularly my member profile, wherein specifically "Curmudgeon" is stated as my occupation.

Accuracy rant over. Please return to your normal browsing.

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

Outstanding! "I do not spew hate." HaHaHaHa. 'Nuff said on that.

Then we are in agreement on that! I do not spew hate.

Quote:

Being somewhat new to this board, I now see that you are the resident curmudgeon, so I recognize that this is your shtick.

You seem to have missed some of my main points, and curmudgeon or not, you didn't comment on them; why not? Maybe because I was right?

Anyone who has debated with me over the years will probably testify that I do not leave anything unanswered. I'll certainly take your points...one at a time, so that we don't waste time here.

Quote:

Frank, you are about as much of an Independent as James Jeffords is in the Senate. (Unless you really are an "Indepenent" as you stated. Is that a new political party? HaHaHa). How about addressing the points I made earlier, which you conveniently overlooked?:

What is your opinion of Reagan and the issue of the cold war?

Thank you for calling the typo to my attention. It helps me put you into perspective.

I voted for Ronald Reagan the first time he ran...and declined to vote for his re-election.

I think you conservatives give Ronald Reagan too much credit for "ending" the cold war...and I think liberals give him too little.

Quote:

Why didn't the Left protest, march, and undermine Clinton upon his military action into Serbia, as the Left is doing now to Bush? The Right certainly didn't do that to Clinton. You didn't answer this the first time; want to give it another try?

Why are you asking me what "the left" did or did not do? I certainly am not of the left.

In any case, I think the differences between what Clinton did and what this moron, George Bush is doing...are considerable.

Bush has invaded a country with the full military might of the United States...and has WASTED $200 billion of our treasure...money vitally needed to fight the actual terrorists of the world.

He did this with faulty information...that it seems was at least partly manufactured by him and his handlers...even if just by them showing others in the intelligence community what they wanted to hear.

He has, with his recklessness, emboldened the terrorists; made their recruiting easier; made the recruits even more devoted to the destruction of America...and has alienated the peoples of most of our allies.

He is an incompetent boor.

Quote:

How about my comment: "If the Repubs were rallying the discontent and hatred in WWII that the Left is right now, we would have never entered that fight and England would have a decidedly Prussian slant in 2004." You avoided answering that one, didn't ya?

I'm sorry, Lone Voice, but the idea of an American conservative giving lectures on hatred and discontent is so ludicrous...my laughing prevents me from treating it seriously enough for a serious response.

Quote:

Like most narrow-minded people...

That is like having Rush Limbaugh call me fat!

Quote:

...you fail to address any issue in which your opponent might have a point. Are you going to address these issues, or is it more of your style to just take shots at people with whom you disagree?

You are new...apparently not just to A2K...but also to life.

Grow up!

There is no issue you will ever raise that I will fear to answer in any way whatsoever. Frankly, I handle people with 10 times your abilities.

Quote:

Quit letting hate prevent you from being objective.

Stop giving lectures on hate and objectivity. Yer killin' me.

Quote:

I do not like getting into flame wars, as nothing productive ever results.

Couldn't tell that from this posting.

Quote:

So after you take your shots at me, try to answer my questions so we can discuss issues. I, in turn, will not take returning shots at you, and we can discuss this?

Okay, no shots from either side.

Wadda ya wanna talk about.

0 Replies

An aside to Frank ... ya know, I sorta miss Maliagar ... that was some fun, eh?

0 Replies

By Jove! You've Got It! He's a GOP "plant"! A ringer! How could any real candidate be this bad?
At any moment, the guy from Candid Camera is going to spring up and tell us "SMILE Your'e on Candid Camera!"
Don't You Just Feel Like A Dick?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

An aside to Frank ... ya know, I sorta miss Maliagar ... that was some fun, eh?

Yep!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay, no shots from either side.

Wadda ya wanna talk about.

Cool. Do your feelings of Bush stem from his invasion of Iraq? Did you view him as being incompetent in the early days after 9-11; have you always thought little of him?

I'd really like to talk about the Left, the media, and Bush bashers and how they compare to what took place in the US leading up to America's entry into WWII:

A lot of moderates (including me) cannot understand the hatred some people have of Bush. (Before you start laughing about me calling myself a moderate, I'll explain: some issues I take the position of most Democrats; some issues I view as a Libertarian would, and in some I sound like I could be working for the GOP. I view Bush and the actions he took as if I was a diehard Repub; I'm not, so please don't try to stereotype me). Anyway, my opinion is that Bush had to make a call when Iraq refused UN inspections, and an ultimatum was the only way.

If Iraq had WMDs, and used them in a terrorist attack on the US, some of the same folks who are slamming Bush now would be slamming him for being unprepared. Look at how some view Bush as being unready for 9-11. Yet if he would have invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden prior to 9-11, the Left would have been screaming then. Actually, a lot of them screamed even after 9-11.

If the Right was as militant, undermining, and nasty in 1940 as the Left is today, the US very well might have remained isolationist.

Most of the Left and the Dems did not protest Clinton's decision to take the US into Serbia. Why not? This leads me to believe that Dems are not so much protesting the war in Iraq as they are protesting Bush.

It makes me shudder to think that every setback in Iraq is met by cheers from the Dems. Ever watch Al Jazeera? Every protest in the US is shown. Every shot taken at Bush is broadcast. Most Arabs in the Middle East believe that Bush has no support in the US, which is simply not true.

Yet every partisan Dem belittling Bush that is shown on Al Jazeera gives the Islamic fanatics more hope, and pushes them to kill even more US soldiers.

You are an Independent, but doesn't the actions of partisan Democrats give you pause?

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

Do your feelings of Bush stem from his invasion of Iraq? Did you view him as being incompetent in the early days after 9-11; have you always thought little of him?

I was not nuts about his father...and I disliked him from the first moment he started running for the presidency.

He is an embarrassment to watch and to hear...and I cannot get over the revulsion I feel knowing he is in the Oval Office for all the rest of the world to see.

Quote:

I'd really like to talk about the Left, the media, and Bush bashers and how they compare to what took place in the US leading up to America's entry into WWII:

A lot of moderates (including me) cannot understand the hatred some people have of Bush. (Before you start laughing about me calling myself a moderate, I'll explain: some issues I take the position of most Democrats; some issues I view as a Libertarian would, and in some I sound like I could be working for the GOP. I view Bush and the actions he took as if I was a diehard Repub; I'm not, so please don't try to stereotype me). Anyway, my opinion is that Bush had to make a call when Iraq refused UN inspections, and an ultimatum was the only way.

It is okay for you to think in such black and white terms...(I'd use the word simplistic, but that could be construed as an insult when honestly none is intended)...but not for the president of the United States.

I thought we acted precipitously...and wrote about my feelings extensively. I thought we acted in a way that dissed many important allies...and suggested that even the world leaders who backed us probably did not represent the feelings of the person-in-the-street of their countries.

I thought that we could better use our tax dollars; our military might; and our other resourses in the fight on terrorism...by going after terrorists, rather than petty dictators...who are so easily replaced.

Mostly, my concerns have been shown to be on the mark.

I absolutely despise the way this administration handled the run-up to ths war...which I saw as unnecessary and unnecessarily adventerous...and I deplore the damage Bush and company have done to our prestige in the world.

No matter who wins this election and the next several...the people handling the duties of the president of the United States will be much, much more complicated by the mess these people have already created.

Quote:

If the Right was as militant, undermining, and nasty in 1940 as the Left is today, the US very well might have remained isolationist.

Sorry...I simply will not comment on right wing lecturing on nastiness. It is embarrassing to be asked to do so.

Quote:

Most of the Left and the Dems did not protest Clinton's decision to take the US into Serbia. Why not? This leads me to believe that Dems are not so much protesting the war in Iraq as they are protesting Bush.

My guess is that most are protesting the way Bush did things...and the damage caused by the way Bush did things.

I not only agree...I am one of them.

If you think there is something wrong with that....tell me what it is and I will comment.

Quote:

It makes me shudder to think that every setback in Iraq is met by cheers from the Dems.

Gimme a break, will ya.

Do you think Democrats are rejoicing over the people being killed over there? That is insane! Or more exactly...projecting the way you (and probably your fellow conservatives) would react if the positions were reversed.

Quote:

Ever watch Al Jazeera? Every protest in the US is shown. Every shot taken at Bush is broadcast. Most Arabs in the Middle East believe that Bush has no support in the US, which is simply not true.

Aha...so you are councelling us to give up our rights to speak and protest...in order to defeat terrorism?????

That is an act of terrorism in itself.

Quote:

Yet every partisan Dem belittling Bush that is shown on Al Jazeera gives the Islamic fanatics more hope, and pushes them to kill even more US soldiers.

Well, I am not a partisan Dem...nor even a not so partisan Dem...and I think George Bush is an incompetent moron...who has done more damage to this country in the 3+ years that he's handled the helm than terrorists could do in a century.

I abhor him and his band of incompetent miscreants...and I wish with all my heart that Americans wake up and send them all packing in November.

Quote:

You are an Independent, but doesn't the actions of partisan Democrats give you pause?

Sure it does. But you see how I feel...so you can understand that I probably will not see their partisanship with the same jaundiced eye as you.

But as for "giving pause"...lemme tell you that people like you defending this incompetent, disgusting group really GIVES ME PAUSE!

0 Replies

Thanks for the extensive, mostly polite Smile

response. From going back and reading some of your past posts, I think I now have a better handle on what you are about. I thought I had you pegged as being an extreme left zealot, but I was wrong. So sorry for the earlier shots I took at you, they were not deserved and I apologize.

I'll skip the Bush conversation, as there does not seem to be any sort of middle ground there for either one of us. I would, however, like to discuss society's actions in time of war; this is an issue that will have far reaching effects, and will determine the course of the US in the next 10-20+ years.

Quote:

Do you think Democrats are rejoicing over the people being killed over there? That is insane! Or more exactly...projecting the way you (and probably your fellow conservatives) would react if the positions were reversed.

No! I wasn't specifically talking about Dems cheering when a soldier is killed. I can't fathom any American citizen thinking such a thing. What I was referring to was sabotage, intimidation of other Iraqis by Islamic fundamentalists, a country like the Philippines bailing out and giving in to blackmailers, etc. Friends and relatives who are serving in Iraq have e-mailed me about some of the things they've accomplished, asking me to save newspapers clippings for them when they come home. I tell them there is no mention of their actions in the press, and they can't understand. It seems like the media and the libs have a predetermined ending to Iraq; it will be a 'quagmire' with no chance of success.

Quote:

Aha...so you are councelling us to give up our rights to speak and protest...in order to defeat terrorism?????

That is an act of terrorism in itself.

This is where my WWII observation comes in. You are avoiding this by saying you will not comment "on right wing lecturing on nastiness." OK, forgot you heard it from me (although I am not 'right-wing', as you put it; it seems that any disagreement with the Left automatically makes one a right winger); but why is the difference in support for the government/military not remarked upon?

Because of Vietnam, the Left feels it has to protest any military action not instigated by a Democrat. I'm not lecturing, I'm asking for an opinion: do you think Nazi's would rule Europe today if the left protested US actions as vehemently as they do today?

Quote:

He has, with his recklessness, emboldened the terrorists; made their recruiting easier; made the recruits even more devoted to the destruction of America...and has alienated the peoples of most of our allies.

First of all, please believe me when I say I respect your opinion and view on this. It appears that you were against this from day one; you have not changed your position because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

But, don't you think that there are many, many 'protesters' out there who are not as pure in thought as you are? Don't you think there are many people trying their hardest to undermine any chance of US success in Iraq, simply to get a Democrat elected? People who may have initially been for US action, when it seemed like the popular thing to do; but then saw US failure as a way to get in the White House, to try to paint as gloomy a picture as possible?

To me, it is these people who are emboldening the terrorists and making their recruiting easier. Should it be allowed to occur? Of course. But when do people step back and evaluate the actual harm they are doing to our country and our soldiers?

What is YOUR solution, Frank? No fair saying you wouldn't have got us there; we're there and on the ground. Do you disagree that all the propaganda on Al Jazeera is making it harder for our soldiers to complete their mission and leave Iraq?

And just curious, lets say Kerry wins in November. If he decides that it is best that we stay there for 4 more years to "stabilize" Iraq, should the protests continue? Should we continue to provide enticing footage of protesters and their lack of support for Kerry for Al Jazeera?

Anyway, I'm curious as to your response. After I've been here awhile, and you have seen my opinions on issues not related to Iraq, you might find that I am not as much a rightwinger as you surmise; just as I discovered that you are not the left-wing extremist I assumed you were. Smile

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

I'll skip the Bush conversation, as there does not seem to be any sort of middle ground there for either one of us. I would, however, like to discuss society's actions in time of war; this is an issue that will have far reaching effects, and will determine the course of the US in the next 10-20+ years.

I agree with both sentiments expressed in this paragraph, LV.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you think Democrats are rejoicing over the people being killed over there? That is insane! Or more exactly...projecting the way you (and probably your fellow conservatives) would react if the positions were reversed.

No! I wasn't specifically talking about Dems cheering when a soldier is killed. I can't fathom any American citizen thinking such a thing. What I was referring to was sabotage, intimidation of other Iraqis by Islamic fundamentalists, a country like the Philippines bailing out and giving in to blackmailers, etc. Friends and relatives who are serving in Iraq have e-mailed me about some of the things they've accomplished, asking me to save newspapers clippings for them when they come home. I tell them there is no mention of their actions in the press, and they can't understand.

Lots here...let me take it in small pieces.

The reason I said what I said in the above quote was in response to your comment: "It makes me shudder to think that every setback in Iraq is met by cheers from the Dems."

There was no mention of Iraqi against Iraqi.

As for the "good things being done in Iraq"...well, I certainly hear and read about them. Every time a newpaper reports on a speech given by George Bush or Dick Cheney...those things are mentioned ad nauseum. In fact those guys seem to be oblivious to some of the bad stuff happening. (When is the last time you hear either mentioned the number of Ameicans dead or maimed?)

Quote:

It seems like the media and the libs have a predetermined ending to Iraq; it will be a 'quagmire' with no chance of success.

I cannot speak for the media or the libs or the Dems...but "predetermined" or not...I am convinced that Iraq is a quagmire and I am convinced there is precious little chance of (what I would determine to be) success.

Who knows...I may be wrong. We'll see.

But I think it is closer to reality to characterize optimism about "success" as naive...than it is to characterize how I (and so many others) feel as duplicitous, abetting of the enemy, or self-defeating.

History will determine which of us is correct in this.

Quote:

Quote:
Aha...so you are councelling us to give up our rights to speak and protest...in order to defeat terrorism?????

That is an act of terrorism in itself.

This is where my WWII observation comes in. You are avoiding this by saying you will not comment "on right wing lecturing on nastiness." OK, forgot you heard it from me (although I am not 'right-wing', as you put it; it seems that any disagreement with the Left automatically makes one a right winger); but why is the difference in support for the government/military not remarked upon?

LV...the differences between what was happening prior to WWII and what was happening prior to our invasion of Iraq are so glaring, that, respectfully, I really cannot give your analogy enough credence to put the time and energy into a reasonable response.

Lemme give it a Readers Digest try: Japan...as a nation...attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Germany had an army in armed conflict in Europe.

Iraq not only did not attack us...it is becoming more and more apparent that although Saddam loathed us, he also was an implacable enemy of the people who did. And it seems he, not George Bush, was telling the truth about the WMD.

Now I am not going to pretend that partisans of the other side from you are not jumping on this purely from unimpeachable motives...but I am a reasonable, intelligent individual...and while I am solidly behind the poor grunts who have to fight this stinking war, I will NEVER be able to support the notion of having gone to war...or the (what I consider) pathetic rationalizations about the benefits of Saddam being gone.

Frankly, I fear that what will replace Saddam will, one day, have us longing for his return.

Once again, history will determine if I am correct...or if I am way off base.

Quote:

Because of Vietnam, the Left feels it has to protest any military action not instigated by a Democrat. I'm not lecturing, I'm asking for an opinion: do you think Nazi's would rule Europe today if the left protested US actions as vehemently as they do today?

Well, let's leave aside the fact that the liberals of the days before WWII were the people arguing that we should get involved and the conservatives were the ones saying that Hitler was not all that bad a guy and could be counted on as a reasonable world partner...(not really all that easy to do)...

...no I do not.

No matter how much people protest today...this war is going to be fought....and no matter how much people would have protested back in the early 40's, that war was going to be fought.

I suspect, by the way, that we still have one more great war in us...and I suspect that no matter how much many of us protest that coming war...it will be fought.

Quote:

Quote:
He has, with his recklessness, emboldened the terrorists; made their recruiting easier; made the recruits even more devoted to the destruction of America...and has alienated the peoples of most of our allies.

First of all, please believe me when I say I respect your opinion and view on this. It appears that you were against this from day one; you have not changed your position because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

Thanks!

Quote:

But, don't you think that there are many, many 'protesters' out there who are not as pure in thought as you are? Don't you think there are many people trying their hardest to undermine any chance of US success in Iraq, simply to get a Democrat elected?

Take the word "many" out of that thought...and I'll agree with it.

But I think that the number of people in that category are very, very, very, very few...and they probably are as nutty as I think some of the "let's wipe 'em all off the face of the earth" crowd to be.

Quote:

People who may have initially been for US action, when it seemed like the popular thing to do; but then saw US failure as a way to get in the White House, to try to paint as gloomy a picture as possible?

To me, it is these people who are emboldening the terrorists and making their recruiting easier. Should it be allowed to occur? Of course. But when do people step back and evaluate the actual harm they are doing to our country and our soldiers?

Once again, I think you are simply not paying enough attention to the fact that many of the people protesting are mostly insensed by the WAY we went to war here...than actually by the fact that we are at war. Personally, I hate the fact that we are fighting this particualar war...but "hate" does not begin to describe the way I feel about the way we went into this war...the damage we've done to our nation's prestige and to the institutions built up over the last two+ centuries.

Quote:

What is YOUR solution, Frank? No fair saying you wouldn't have got us there; we're there and on the ground. Do you disagree that all the propaganda on Al Jazeera is making it harder for our soldiers to complete their mission and leave Iraq?

It is my opinion that this war will end the way the Vietnam war ended...with us pulling out and pretending that some kind of victory had occurred.

I think (hope I'm wrong on this) that the evacuation will make the evacuation of Saigon look like a cake walk.

I can only hope that the Iraqis manage to do what the Vietnamese did...pull their country together and try to make the most of a bad situation. But even there, I am darkly pessimistic...and I see Iraq emerging from this fiasco in worse condition than we found it and as a greater thorn in our side.

We'll see.

Quote:

And just curious, lets say Kerry wins in November. If he decides that it is best that we stay there for 4 more years to "stabilize" Iraq, should the protests continue? Should we continue to provide enticing footage of protesters and their lack of support for Kerry for Al Jazeera?

In response, I will ask what I asked earlier: Are you councelling us to give up our rights to speak out and protest...in order to defeat terrorism?????

Quote:

Anyway, I'm curious as to your response. After I've been here awhile, and you have seen my opinions on issues not related to Iraq, you might find that I am not as much a rightwinger as you surmise; just as I discovered that you are not the left-wing extremist I assumed you were.

Good! I'm enjoying this discussion, LV. You seem like a reasonable individual...and I am pretty sure we'll bang heads on many interesting topics...just as I'm pretty sure we're going to stand shoulder to shoulder on many others. I love this stuff...and I love this forum.

0 Replies

QUOTE: It makes me shudder to think that every setback in Iraq is met by cheers from the Dems.

Your bicycle is headed backwards and I don't think you know how to steer it.

Commentary that is filled with such rhetorical nonsense are not only difficult to read but rapidly become boring.

0 Replies

Kerry's campaign problem: office politics
THOMAS OLIPHANT
Office politics
By Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe Columnist
September 19, 2004

WASHINGTON

JOHN KERRY gave a more than decent account of himself in Michigan last week in an important oration about the economy. But several new members of his campaign staff thought it more important to step all over his message and promote themselves as the new bosses of the effort.

Later in the week, Kerry was even more forceful and effective in Nevada as he discussed the murderous mess in Iraq. But again, his campaign's Narcissism Caucus got between Kerry and the public by spinning the political press into glowing accounts of their campaign coup.

All this madness began unfolding while the Bush campaign was revving up its attack machine in New York. Two of the original promoters of firings at the top included onetime Clinton advisers James Carville and Paul Begala, the latter having almost but not quite come aboard last spring. The effort reached its public peak when CNN anchor Judy Woodruff, without disclosing the basis for her question, confronted senior Kerry adviser Jeanne Shaheen with "reports" of a huge shakeup and asked her if the campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and top consultant Bob Shrum were about to be fired.

Though she was ambushed that day at the end of August, Shaheen's quick-thinking answer -- there is no change -- has stood up ever since. According to Kerry, the boss of his campaign is Cahill, and she and Shrum (along with the partners in his firm, Tad Devine and Mike Donilan) supply its strategic direction.

That's not the story that surfaced this week from recent arrivals who claimed they had taken over Kerry's daily communication and organization and through them the campaign. All have Clinton backgrounds: Joe Lockhart was said by his colleagues to be boss of what Kerry says, Doug Sosnik was said to have taken over the targeting of resources at battleground states, Carville and Begala were said to be communicating directly with Kerry on strategy, and onetime Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg was said to be not only aboard but pushing a point shared within the group that the key to the election is regular attacks on President Bush without worrying about undecided or "swing" voters.

As a general rule in this sort of insider politics and journalism, the supposed new regime and its promoters are one and the same. That is why I have learned to suspect that those who leak the least are generally those who don't need to for personal promotion or who have a sharper focus on winning the election. In this case, that would be Cahill and Shrum and Co., along with two longtime Kerry advisers (John Sasso and Mike Whouly) who are famously averse to office gossip.

The new group, however, has gone after or sought to marginalize their colleagues and more prominent Kerry allies as well. Cahill gets the faint-praise insult as the person who only keeps the trains running on time. This year, the reclusive Shrum is everyone's favorite target, despite his status as one of the most important Democratic Party minds of the last 30 years with long, personal ties to both Kerry and Senator Edward Kennedy.

They have also taken shots at running mate John Edwards for the supposed sin of not being enough of an attack dog and focusing to much on the weird notion of using the Kerry-Edwards issues positions to persuade wavering voters.

And their view of Kennedy -- who helped right Kerry's floundering campaign last fall and sent his top aide, Cahill, to do the heavy lifting -- is that he was of importance in the primaries, not now. Kennedy has the odd notion that people should shut up about office politics and promote Kerry's election instead of their own positions.

There's the key -- and the rub. Last week's sophomoric behavior makes Kerry into a passive vehicle for the ambitions of others. It also directly interferes with the communication of his views. I understand he blew his stack when reports of the backstage shenanigans first surfaced last week; and I can understand why.

Even worse, the public pursuit of office politics insults the more than 50-million people with a direct stake in Kerry's election -- working families trying to stay afloat, National Guard families who have been without breadwinners for a year, elderly citizens sending too much of their money to drug companies.

They need to know what Kerry and Edwards will do to change their lives for the better, not who is running the campaign "war room." With the election literally up for grabs down the stretch, this ugly ball is now in Kerry's court.

0 Replies

Has Anyone Considered That Kerry Knows He's Losing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know