http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/27/cp.00.html
TRANSCRIPT FROM CNN's appearance last night:
CAROL LIN, CNN CENTER, ATLANTA: I'm Carol Lin at the CNN Center in Atlanta.
So, can the United States and its Iraqi allies win this guerilla war in Iraq? Will this handover of sovereignty help them do that? And is there a clear exit strategy for the U.S. forces in Iraq?
Two points of view tonight. I'm joined from Little Rock, Arkansas by former NATO commander and recent Democratic presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark.
And in Washington, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Ken Adelman.
Good evening, gentlemen.
First to you, General Clark. Has the administration done anything right in Iraq? Can you see a light at the end of the tunnel?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO COMMANDER: Well, I think the administration has moved in the direction which John Kerry and I and others had been advocating for a long time, which is to try to bring in the international community and use international authority to help take away some of the stigma of occupation in Iraq.
The administration didn't have an exit strategy, didn't have a plan for success. Now they have a plan. We don't know if it's going to be successful.
But, yes, they're attempting to cope with the situation, and they're moving in the direction which we've advised them to do.
LIN: Ken, fundamentally, what is going to change after the handover starting July 1?
KEN ADELMAN, DEFENSE POLICY BOARD: It's their country. That's the main thing that's going to change.
And so, Iraqis have to think, who are the resisters and what are they resisting? They're not resisting American occupation, because now they have an Iraqi government. And they're on the way to have a democratically elected Iraqi government.
So, what are they blowing up? And for what purpose?
And what you can say is, they're nihilists, they're anarchists. They're terrorists. And they're blowing up nothing that is going to help Iraq. They're blowing up a lot of Iraqis, that is going to hurt the future of their country.
LIN: General Clark, Prime Minister Allawi has made it pretty clear that he wants the Iraqi forces to secure the country. Obviously, these Iraqi forces need a lot of training.
Is this the right strategy to fight this kind of insurgency that's going on right now?
CLARK: I think, if it's possible to build forces, that it could help unify the country.
But this is a deep problem, because you've got not only terrorists in there, you've got people who are fighting for their own self interests. You've got Kurds who are ready to declare independence at the slightest opportunity, Sunnis who are afraid of Shiite domination and some in the Shiite community who are allied with Iran. So there's a multiplicity of motives. This is a stewpot of violence in there. It's going to be very difficult for anybody to sort this out democratically.
LIN: General, you know that President Bush is going to the NATO summit in Istanbul this coming week to ask the allies there to contribute, if not troops, at least military advisors - trainers on the ground for those Iraqi forces.
What in NATO's history of warfare has ever compared with the insurgency fight that we're seeing on the ground in Iraq right now?
CLARK: Well, NATO has done a pretty good job of helping bring peace to the Balkans, both in Bosnia and Kosovo. It's got its forces now in Afghanistan.
Frankly, it doesn't have a lot of forces left over to put into Iraq. But it could help by training, and I hope it will do so.
LIN: Ken, is there a clear exit strategy, do you think? I mean, what would be the precipitator to the U.S. forces withdrawing completely from Iraq?
ADELMAN: Well, Carol, the point of the exercise is not to have an exit strategy. The point of the exercise is to hand over an Iraq that is going to be freely elected, at least is safe and is on the road to progress.
Iraq has something today that it did not have for the last 30 years, and that is hope - hope that they can create a better future. And under Saddam Hussein, it was just hopeless.
LIN: Ken, ...
ADELMAN: And Saddam ...
LIN: ... but a hope based on what? I mean, we've got five ...
ADELMAN: Hope based on ...
LIN: ... hostages right now being held in that country.
ADELMAN: Right.
LIN: And the militants seeming to be running free, kidnapping at will, killing at will.
What can the Iraqi people, much less the American people with forces on the ground, look for in terms of hope right now?
ADELMAN: They can look for hope that the Iraqi is going to take over as prime ministership on Wednesday. There's going to be an Iraqi president. There's going to be on the road to democratic leadership. And, therefore, it's going to be their country. And that is a very different thing than it has been for the last three decades.
You are absolutely right, Carol, that there are terrorists there. And they are people blowing up and taking hostages.
They are - we know that this is the age of terrorism. We know that this is a worldwide problem, and they're focused on Iraq today.
LIN: General Clark, several of the experts that I've spoken to today - take a look at the big picture of Iraq. Take a look at the fact that American forces have withdrawn from Fallujah.
And I have spoken to a journalist who was embedded with the insurgents in Fallujah. He says that the terrorists there are building bombs freely, training their future terrorists freely.
What he envisions is that Fallujah becomes the equivalent of the northwest province in Pakistan, that it is given over to the insurgents, and the rest of Iraq, 80 percent victory for the United States, the U.S. coalition, to say that, yes, Iraq is now a democratic country.
CLARK: Well, we're going to have to go back into Fallujah with forces. But I think you've got to also look at the big picture in the region, Carol.
You have Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. What we're now doing in Iraq is, we're totally bogged down with the United States Army.
This serves the Iranians' interests. We are distracted while they are building a nuclear weapon.
And when we need to muster our resources and work with the Europeans to put the pressure on the Iranians to come clean, instead we're begging the Europeans to come and help us get out of a mess we created for ourselves in Iraq.LINK
So, in my view, Iraq was a strategic blunder by the United States. If we'd look for who was really helping terrorists, we would have gone directly at Iran right after 9/11. They are connected. They were collaborating with al Qaeda.
And we have a real problem on our hands in Iraq right now.
LIN: Ken Adelman?
ADELMAN: Now, listen. I talked to Wes Clark many times after 9/11, and I never heard him saying that we should invade Iran. And I did hear him say that under the right conditions we should go into Iraq.
Now, I think his position has been all over the lot, just like John Kerry's position has been all over the lot, voting for the resolution, voting against the resolution, voting - saying we can't cut and run, voting for zero funding so that we cut and run. I mean, there has been a great inconsistency.
But if Wes Clark was saying after 9/11, that we should go in with force into Iran, that is a startling thing to say, and I'd like to see some evidence that ...
LIN: Well, gentlemen, ...
CLARK: Well, I'd like to have that discussion, Carol, just a moment here, if I could.
Number one, I said we should be working against Iran. I didn't say invade.
But now we don't have the military options, because we are committed in a way we didn't have to be committed.
Number two, I would have supported the president taking the Iraq situation to the United Nations. I would have never given him a blank check to invade Iraq as he did. It was necessary, ...
ADELMAN: No, but John Kerry ...
CLARK: Just a minute.
ADELMAN: ... but John Kerry XX ...
CLARK: Iraq was not an imminent threat.
LIN: Gentlemen, ...
CLARK: And, Ken, ...
ADELMAN: But John Kerry voted for the ...
LIN: Our intention, gentlemen ...
CLARK: You said it would be a cakewalk, Ken. It hasn't been a cakewalk.
ADELMAN: John Kerry voted for the resolution.
CLARK: It won't be. Carol, this is a very important question, and I hope that we'll be able to look at it in a regional context, because that's the way we must deal with it.
LIN: All right, Ken. So, in conclusion here, what do you think the United States needs to do next?
ADELMAN: Well, I think that what the United States is doing is trying to have the Iraqis step up to the plate and take more of their own security, take more of their own future into their own hands.
I think it is absolutely critical to keep the date of next January for the free elections going. And it is absolutely critical to have a consistent policy.
And, tell you the truth, Wes Clark and John Kerry have been all over the lot ...
LIN: All right. I have to leave it there. CLARK: Carol, I don't think ...
LIN: We don't mean to go down the campaign trail tonight, gentlemen. Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
LIN: Ken Adelman, thank you very much. General Wesley Clark. The two of you will have to continue on your own time.
ADELMAN: Great. OK.
Monday, June 28, 2004
(#15) (No rating)
by C4Clark on 06/28/2004 08:39:05 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Q: "Where is Wes from July 1st - on?"
A: Well we do know that Wes and Gert had planned to be in California but the trip got move forward to August ;-)
EXACTLY Just what I remembered! ;)
As Sybil says: "watch and listen..."
by C4Clark on 06/28/2004 08:39:05 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Q: "Where is Wes from July 1st - on?"
A: Well we do know that Wes and Gert had planned to be in California but the trip got move forward to August ;-)
EXACTLY Just what I remembered! ;)
As Sybil says: "watch and listen..."
(#61) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Donna Z (donna_zen at yahoo dot com) on 06/28/2004 09:39:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I was wondering about MM decision to leave Clark's name out of the film; and I do think he made a concious decision to do so. I agree with his call. After the firestorm his comment caused for Wes, I would imagine that MM would not want the General dragged into anything else.
What happened to Moore, as happened to me and I suspect many other on this board, is that while he may have started out thinking that it would be a cool strategic move to claim four stars for the Democrats, he too ended up amazed and enthralled with Wes Clark. Moore talked privately with Wes, in addition, he traveled with him; ah_to be a fly on the wall. MM's penchent for provocative view points meeting up with Clark's percise dry humor must have been a thing of beauty.
by Donna Z (donna_zen at yahoo dot com) on 06/28/2004 09:39:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I was wondering about MM decision to leave Clark's name out of the film; and I do think he made a concious decision to do so. I agree with his call. After the firestorm his comment caused for Wes, I would imagine that MM would not want the General dragged into anything else.
What happened to Moore, as happened to me and I suspect many other on this board, is that while he may have started out thinking that it would be a cool strategic move to claim four stars for the Democrats, he too ended up amazed and enthralled with Wes Clark. Moore talked privately with Wes, in addition, he traveled with him; ah_to be a fly on the wall. MM's penchent for provocative view points meeting up with Clark's percise dry humor must have been a thing of beauty.
EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
#62 by SusanClevelandOH
After letting it rest overnight, and looking at the transcript here just now, this morning my thinking on it is:
General Wes made several big forward moves.
The ones that stirred up the pot were when
1. General Wes "took it to" Ken Adelman by bringing Iran into it. This rattled Adelman. (Wes knew that Adelman had just done a major interview on Fox on the Iran card, though Wes never mentioned this.)
So General Wes decided to bring Iran into it, in a matter-of-fact way last night, as if talking about the weather. (You know how Wes is,and speaks that way. It's his natural way. But can be, after you think about it a minute: POW!)
Wes surprised Adelman with this. Wes had obviously planned this (quickly) and won the debate point on the way he chose to bring Iran into it. And bring it in early on.
The way Wes did it and the timing of Wes bringing Iran into it and the substance too all rattled Adelman.
Adelman was shocked to hear Wes say so calmly and deliberately (behind Wes' "General's face and eyes") that he, Wes, had believed and said, before the Iraq war, that Iran was more important than Iraq. That confounded what Adelman had said the night before on Fox about Iran. And Adelman went into orbit.
2. After the moderator, Carol Lin, cutting off Wes, he managed to quickly slip it in in a moment for the "cakewalk" card. (Adelman's most disastrous advice, and very public remark at that, in Adelman's official position on the Defense Policy Board, just before we, the U.S., went into the Iraq War was that it would be "a cakewalk".) This cost us a lot of blood, as many believed Adelman.
These above two moves by General Wes, I believe, particularly the latter one, got the producer's guard up. They know General Wes and know that he knows and they get wary and on guard with him, watching his every move and not giving him room to surprise them (even tho they like him), they know that he can roll right over everyone, one way or the other, before anyone realizes what he's doing.
It's that wariness of him that had the producer have Judy Woodruff in the first Democratic Debate, box General Wes in with shields, and treat him like the oncoming force. Last night, toward the end, the producer had Carol Lin do what was a mini-repeat of what the producer had Judy Woodruff do with Wes in the First Democratic Debate.
"En garde!!" "The scary-smart General looks quiet and at ease, but he's been challenged and he's likely to suddenly spring to the attack!!! Watch out!!! It may be his "quiet attack"!!! Move out the way!!
Sound retreat!! Cut off the mike!!!
Let me outta here ---
You won't believe what that soldier, that general at that, can do when attacks!!
"Stewpot" indeed. :)
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
#62 by SusanClevelandOH
After letting it rest overnight, and looking at the transcript here just now, this morning my thinking on it is:
General Wes made several big forward moves.
The ones that stirred up the pot were when
1. General Wes "took it to" Ken Adelman by bringing Iran into it. This rattled Adelman. (Wes knew that Adelman had just done a major interview on Fox on the Iran card, though Wes never mentioned this.)
So General Wes decided to bring Iran into it, in a matter-of-fact way last night, as if talking about the weather. (You know how Wes is,and speaks that way. It's his natural way. But can be, after you think about it a minute: POW!)
Wes surprised Adelman with this. Wes had obviously planned this (quickly) and won the debate point on the way he chose to bring Iran into it. And bring it in early on.
The way Wes did it and the timing of Wes bringing Iran into it and the substance too all rattled Adelman.
Adelman was shocked to hear Wes say so calmly and deliberately (behind Wes' "General's face and eyes") that he, Wes, had believed and said, before the Iraq war, that Iran was more important than Iraq. That confounded what Adelman had said the night before on Fox about Iran. And Adelman went into orbit.
2. After the moderator, Carol Lin, cutting off Wes, he managed to quickly slip it in in a moment for the "cakewalk" card. (Adelman's most disastrous advice, and very public remark at that, in Adelman's official position on the Defense Policy Board, just before we, the U.S., went into the Iraq War was that it would be "a cakewalk".) This cost us a lot of blood, as many believed Adelman.
These above two moves by General Wes, I believe, particularly the latter one, got the producer's guard up. They know General Wes and know that he knows and they get wary and on guard with him, watching his every move and not giving him room to surprise them (even tho they like him), they know that he can roll right over everyone, one way or the other, before anyone realizes what he's doing.
It's that wariness of him that had the producer have Judy Woodruff in the first Democratic Debate, box General Wes in with shields, and treat him like the oncoming force. Last night, toward the end, the producer had Carol Lin do what was a mini-repeat of what the producer had Judy Woodruff do with Wes in the First Democratic Debate.
"En garde!!" "The scary-smart General looks quiet and at ease, but he's been challenged and he's likely to suddenly spring to the attack!!! Watch out!!! It may be his "quiet attack"!!! Move out the way!!
Sound retreat!! Cut off the mike!!!
Let me outta here ---
You won't believe what that soldier, that general at that, can do when attacks!!
"Stewpot" indeed. :)
Sunday, June 27, 2004
From Comments at Atrios:
Re: "Bushie Horror Picture Show"
Here are a few ideas:
Wolfowitz comb scene: Audience yells out "ewwwwwwwwwwwww" in unison and tosses tube of Brylcreem at the screen.
Bonanza scene: Audience members point index fingers at ceiling and yell, "Bang! Bang! Smoke 'em out! Dead or alive!"
Shock and awe scene: Audience members bring out New Year's noisemaker toys and make incredibly loud racket while repeatedly chanting at screen: "Shock! And! Awe! What! A! Ball! Shock! And! Awe! What! A! Ball!"
And of course audience members would be encouraged to dress up as their favorite character. Those who like Cheney, for example, could wear a Dr. Evil-type outfit with wire-rim glasses and a bald wig. (Hardcore Cheney fans could shave their heads.)
Shrub fans could honor their hero in a variety of fashions. Perhaps you'd like the Faux Cowboy Shrub look and, during the appropriate scene, you could crawl through the theatre, under the seats and through the rows, in order to clear brush and look for bugs. Or maybe you could show up with your #1 wood and you'd be able to make that drive right along with Dear Leader. Just make sure you don't smack any of your fellow audience members!
monchie b. monchum
"WATCH... THIS... DRIIIVE!!!"
Re: "Bushie Horror Picture Show"
Here are a few ideas:
Wolfowitz comb scene: Audience yells out "ewwwwwwwwwwwww" in unison and tosses tube of Brylcreem at the screen.
Bonanza scene: Audience members point index fingers at ceiling and yell, "Bang! Bang! Smoke 'em out! Dead or alive!"
Shock and awe scene: Audience members bring out New Year's noisemaker toys and make incredibly loud racket while repeatedly chanting at screen: "Shock! And! Awe! What! A! Ball! Shock! And! Awe! What! A! Ball!"
And of course audience members would be encouraged to dress up as their favorite character. Those who like Cheney, for example, could wear a Dr. Evil-type outfit with wire-rim glasses and a bald wig. (Hardcore Cheney fans could shave their heads.)
Shrub fans could honor their hero in a variety of fashions. Perhaps you'd like the Faux Cowboy Shrub look and, during the appropriate scene, you could crawl through the theatre, under the seats and through the rows, in order to clear brush and look for bugs. Or maybe you could show up with your #1 wood and you'd be able to make that drive right along with Dear Leader. Just make sure you don't smack any of your fellow audience members!
monchie b. monchum
"WATCH... THIS... DRIIIVE!!!"
LINK
Kimber Scott (775 posts) Sun Jun-27-04 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yeah, when Saddam was there they all lived under rocks and ate
worms for dinner. Never married. Never went to school. Never played. Oh, and they never got medicine, either, because we sanctioned them against it. Well, thank God we've saved them. Too bad, back in pre-1776 somebody didn't come bomb the shit out of us, We could have been democratized so much faster.
F--- Saddam Hussein AND George Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1869540
Kimber Scott (775 posts) Sun Jun-27-04 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yeah, when Saddam was there they all lived under rocks and ate
worms for dinner. Never married. Never went to school. Never played. Oh, and they never got medicine, either, because we sanctioned them against it. Well, thank God we've saved them. Too bad, back in pre-1776 somebody didn't come bomb the shit out of us, We could have been democratized so much faster.
F--- Saddam Hussein AND George Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1869540
Friday, June 25, 2004
Transcript Providers
http://us.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/24/ip.01.html
Return to Transcripts main page
JUDY WOODRUFF'S INSIDE POLITICS
I
ys until the election, this is INSIDE POLITICS, the place for campaign news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Ron Reagan, the son of the late president and former first lady, Nancy Reagan, has never shied away from controversy. He raised eyebrows at the former president's funeral in california by speaking critically of politicians who he said wear their faith on their sleeves in order to gain political advantage. Well, earlier today, in a wide-ranging conversation, I talked with Ron Reagan, and I started by asking his opinion about the enormous public outpouring in reaction to his father's death.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Reagan: Well, obviously, a lot of it was just affection for him. So I give some credit to my father. I think also that the funeral came at a moment where it sort of caught the crest of a wave of dissatisfaction and dismay in this country over where some of our government's policies are, particularly involving Iraq.
I mean, you've seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib. We've heard about the memos seeking to, you know, end run the Geneva Convention around torture. And I think that the public was just hungry for somebody that they could feel, you know, unalloyed respect for, a good man. And that was my father.
I think a lot of people don't feel so good about their government right now. And with some justification, I must say.
WOODRUFF: What is it that -- is it the war that bothers you the most, or what? I mean, about what's going on right now.
REAGAN: Well, there are plenty of things to -- to bother anybody, I think. I don't think that any American feels sanguine about seeing their country trying to devise ways to torture enemy combatants. We may not like these people, they may be the enemy, but America is not supposed to be a torturing nation.
So that -- that bothers me. It shames this country. And doing it, and seeking to justify it, endangers the lives of men and women who are over there in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
There are reasons we signed on to the Geneva Convention, and, you know, the treaties involving torture. We don't want our own people to be tortured. We want to hold the moral high ground that way. And so this has been very disturbing these last few weeks. WOODRUFF: Was it hard for you to be around? I mean, you have been critical of president's policies, President Bush. Was it hard for you to be around him on the day of your father's funeral?
REAGAN: No, not in particular. I -- that -- those days, that week, was for me about my father. It wasn't about anybody else.
So, no, it's not hard for me to be around him. I may not agree with his policies. But I have no personal animus towards him. I don't know the man. He might have found it hard to be around me, I'm not sure.
(LAUGHTER)
WOODRUFF: Well, he -- you know, the people around George W. Bush have compared him to your father. Many of them have said he's much closer to your father than he is to his own father in terms of his politics. What do you think about that?
REAGAN: Well, if you want to make political comparisons, I suppose that's fair enough. They both have an interest in cutting taxes. Although my father realized at a certain point his tax cuts weren't working, and he raised taxes again.
I don't think my father would have gone into Iraq because it was an unnecessary and optional war. We still haven't been told by this government why they were actually doing it, although I'm sure they do have their reasons.
I bridle the comparisons between the two men as men, because from what I've seen, at least -- and again, I don't know Mr. Bush personally -- but from what I've seen, they're just two very different people.
WOODRUFF: The Reverend Jerry Falwell was quoted a couple of days ago, a few days ago, as saying your father really -- or rather that -- yes, that your father served as, you know, as a mentor to George W. Bush, that George W. Bush was a protege.
REAGAN: No, that's not true. My father really didn't know George W. Bush from Adam. He met him, of course. He was the son of his vice president.
WOODRUFF: I want to ask you something about what you said at your father's burial service in California at the library. You started out by saying, "Dad was also a deeply unabashedly religious man." And then here's what you said.
REAGAN: ... but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.
WOODRUFF: A lot of people thought you were referring to George W. Bush. Were you?
REAGAN: There was only one person I had on my mind when I delivered that eulogy, and that was my father. I hadn't been watching much TV after that. And -- and so a couple of days later, people told me that this, you know, little storm had erupted in Washington of people saying that I was talking about George W. Bush.
And I didn't really understand it at first. I hadn't mentioned him, of course, by name. I was talking about my father's faith, what it was, and what it was not, which was a political tool in his mind.
Now, people close to Mr. Bush assumed that I must be talking about him. And since they know him better than I do, perhaps I was and I just didn't realize it. I thought that was all very telling, frankly.
WOODRUFF: Do you think they were upset about it? Did -- were people -- did people let you know they were upset about it?
REAGAN: Oh, I heard from other people that there were folks that were saying some -- some things that weren't terribly flattering. But I don't really worry about that. Again, my only concern was doing right by my father. And I hope I did that. You know, I -- the last thing I had on my mind, believe me, was George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: You have said, Ron Reagan, that you are not a Republican. Were you ever a Republican?
REAGAN: No, I've never joined any political party and have no plans to do so. I'm fully Independent.
WOODRUFF: Why not? Why not be a Republican?
REAGAN: Well, I couldn't join a party that, frankly, tolerates members who are bigots for one thing. Homophobes, racists. You know, there's no way I could be a part of a party like that. Just no way.
WOODRUFF: You've also said, I think, that you did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000. You haven't made secret of that. What are you going to do this year?
REAGAN: I'll vote for the viable candidate who is capable of unseating George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: And presumably, that's John Kerry.
REAGAN: That's how it looks right now, yes.
WOODRUFF: So John Kerry? I mean...
REAGAN: Well, he would be the viable candidate, yes.
WOODRUFF: What -- what do you think -- I mean, have you talked to your mother about this? Does she -- what does she say about it?
REAGAN: Well, we don't talk about politics all that much, particularly electoral politics. We talk about stem cell research, for instance, embryonic stem cell research, which she's very involved in and I think will continue to be very involved in. This is something she takes very seriously, something I take very seriously, too. And it's shameful this administration has played politics with an issue that is -- you know, this could be the biggest medical breakthrough in history. This could be bigger than antibiotics.
This administration is pandering to the most ignorant segment of our society for votes and throwing up roadblocks to this sort of research. It's absolutely shameful.
http://us.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/24/ip.01.html
Return to Transcripts main page
JUDY WOODRUFF'S INSIDE POLITICS
I
ys until the election, this is INSIDE POLITICS, the place for campaign news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOODRUFF: Ron Reagan, the son of the late president and former first lady, Nancy Reagan, has never shied away from controversy. He raised eyebrows at the former president's funeral in california by speaking critically of politicians who he said wear their faith on their sleeves in order to gain political advantage. Well, earlier today, in a wide-ranging conversation, I talked with Ron Reagan, and I started by asking his opinion about the enormous public outpouring in reaction to his father's death.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Reagan: Well, obviously, a lot of it was just affection for him. So I give some credit to my father. I think also that the funeral came at a moment where it sort of caught the crest of a wave of dissatisfaction and dismay in this country over where some of our government's policies are, particularly involving Iraq.
I mean, you've seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib. We've heard about the memos seeking to, you know, end run the Geneva Convention around torture. And I think that the public was just hungry for somebody that they could feel, you know, unalloyed respect for, a good man. And that was my father.
I think a lot of people don't feel so good about their government right now. And with some justification, I must say.
WOODRUFF: What is it that -- is it the war that bothers you the most, or what? I mean, about what's going on right now.
REAGAN: Well, there are plenty of things to -- to bother anybody, I think. I don't think that any American feels sanguine about seeing their country trying to devise ways to torture enemy combatants. We may not like these people, they may be the enemy, but America is not supposed to be a torturing nation.
So that -- that bothers me. It shames this country. And doing it, and seeking to justify it, endangers the lives of men and women who are over there in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
There are reasons we signed on to the Geneva Convention, and, you know, the treaties involving torture. We don't want our own people to be tortured. We want to hold the moral high ground that way. And so this has been very disturbing these last few weeks. WOODRUFF: Was it hard for you to be around? I mean, you have been critical of president's policies, President Bush. Was it hard for you to be around him on the day of your father's funeral?
REAGAN: No, not in particular. I -- that -- those days, that week, was for me about my father. It wasn't about anybody else.
So, no, it's not hard for me to be around him. I may not agree with his policies. But I have no personal animus towards him. I don't know the man. He might have found it hard to be around me, I'm not sure.
(LAUGHTER)
WOODRUFF: Well, he -- you know, the people around George W. Bush have compared him to your father. Many of them have said he's much closer to your father than he is to his own father in terms of his politics. What do you think about that?
REAGAN: Well, if you want to make political comparisons, I suppose that's fair enough. They both have an interest in cutting taxes. Although my father realized at a certain point his tax cuts weren't working, and he raised taxes again.
I don't think my father would have gone into Iraq because it was an unnecessary and optional war. We still haven't been told by this government why they were actually doing it, although I'm sure they do have their reasons.
I bridle the comparisons between the two men as men, because from what I've seen, at least -- and again, I don't know Mr. Bush personally -- but from what I've seen, they're just two very different people.
WOODRUFF: The Reverend Jerry Falwell was quoted a couple of days ago, a few days ago, as saying your father really -- or rather that -- yes, that your father served as, you know, as a mentor to George W. Bush, that George W. Bush was a protege.
REAGAN: No, that's not true. My father really didn't know George W. Bush from Adam. He met him, of course. He was the son of his vice president.
WOODRUFF: I want to ask you something about what you said at your father's burial service in California at the library. You started out by saying, "Dad was also a deeply unabashedly religious man." And then here's what you said.
REAGAN: ... but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.
WOODRUFF: A lot of people thought you were referring to George W. Bush. Were you?
REAGAN: There was only one person I had on my mind when I delivered that eulogy, and that was my father. I hadn't been watching much TV after that. And -- and so a couple of days later, people told me that this, you know, little storm had erupted in Washington of people saying that I was talking about George W. Bush.
And I didn't really understand it at first. I hadn't mentioned him, of course, by name. I was talking about my father's faith, what it was, and what it was not, which was a political tool in his mind.
Now, people close to Mr. Bush assumed that I must be talking about him. And since they know him better than I do, perhaps I was and I just didn't realize it. I thought that was all very telling, frankly.
WOODRUFF: Do you think they were upset about it? Did -- were people -- did people let you know they were upset about it?
REAGAN: Oh, I heard from other people that there were folks that were saying some -- some things that weren't terribly flattering. But I don't really worry about that. Again, my only concern was doing right by my father. And I hope I did that. You know, I -- the last thing I had on my mind, believe me, was George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: You have said, Ron Reagan, that you are not a Republican. Were you ever a Republican?
REAGAN: No, I've never joined any political party and have no plans to do so. I'm fully Independent.
WOODRUFF: Why not? Why not be a Republican?
REAGAN: Well, I couldn't join a party that, frankly, tolerates members who are bigots for one thing. Homophobes, racists. You know, there's no way I could be a part of a party like that. Just no way.
WOODRUFF: You've also said, I think, that you did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000. You haven't made secret of that. What are you going to do this year?
REAGAN: I'll vote for the viable candidate who is capable of unseating George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: And presumably, that's John Kerry.
REAGAN: That's how it looks right now, yes.
WOODRUFF: So John Kerry? I mean...
REAGAN: Well, he would be the viable candidate, yes.
WOODRUFF: What -- what do you think -- I mean, have you talked to your mother about this? Does she -- what does she say about it?
REAGAN: Well, we don't talk about politics all that much, particularly electoral politics. We talk about stem cell research, for instance, embryonic stem cell research, which she's very involved in and I think will continue to be very involved in. This is something she takes very seriously, something I take very seriously, too. And it's shameful this administration has played politics with an issue that is -- you know, this could be the biggest medical breakthrough in history. This could be bigger than antibiotics.
This administration is pandering to the most ignorant segment of our society for votes and throwing up roadblocks to this sort of research. It's absolutely shameful.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Maltese Falcon Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Jun 24th, 2004 at 10:59:27 PM EST
link
The Hunting of the President
I have just returned from the Angelika theater thrilled after seing the movie and getting the chance to discuss it with none other than Joe Conason.
For those who don't know it, Angelika is an art movie house/coffee house in NYC, where Noho meets Soho.
I heard Conason on Air America last night saying that he was so thrilled to havr his movie play there that he took a picture of the marquis. I also heard he will come by to talk about the movie (he will again tomorrow after the 7:45 showing), so I went.
The movie moves fast through less characters than appear in the book - but still conveys the incredible story (it WAS a VAST conspiracy Mr Thomason!)
It has emotional moments - the Susan McDougal interview, funny ones and infuriating ones.
By the end, when a smiling Clinton picture appears, the audience applauded.
The ending also tied the events to the present day (they tested themselves, next thing, they stole an election, redistricted Texas, lied us into a war)
The "where are they now" notes were histerical - and helped difuse the tension of the story ("Paula Jones posed for Penthhouse and was beaten by Tonya Harding" "Susan McDougal wrote a best seller and hopes for a match with Ken Starr" I won't give them all away...
Enough said, there were applause at the end.
Joe Conason asked us if we liked the movie - and since we did, please tell our friends. The questions followed - and there were all great.
My favorite answer is the one that gave the title of this. Answering a quesrion about Clinton, Conason said: "He is in this story like the Maltese Falcon - ties it all up, but the story is not about him, but about the people who tried to get him.
He told us he didn't write the script, but all the interviews in the movie were done by Gene Lyons and him.
They had had trouble getting actual news footage from the networks - for the obvious reasons.
Asked if Clinton liked the movie, he told us he attended the premiere and just today gave him an interview for Salon and told him he did.
You'd be surprised to find out who else liked it. Asked about Carlyle buying Loews theatres, he said that if it's profitable, they'll play it. That one of the distributors for this movie was Fox and he was told that Rupert Murdoch saw it and liked it.
I finally got a chance to ask my question. I mentioned first the a propos resignation of Ted Olson then I asked if he thinks that the NY Times will ever apologize for Whitewater.
I mentioned Michiko Kahutani disgusting page one review and the fact that she chastized Clinton for not apologizing for Whitewater (among others).
I told him I wrote them about it and the ombudsman wrote me today that the review will be adressed by Daniel Okrent in the week in review section of the Sunday edition.
He said he is quite sure NY Times will never apologize for Whitewater. They had quite a few stories for which they had to - Wen Ho lee, Jason Blair, Judith Miller, but this will not be one of them.
As for ms Kahutani, she couldn't know the truth about Whitewater as she gets her information from....the NY Times.
He spoke in the end of the possibility of changing the way the media reports. The sales of the books critical of Bush, his and Moore movies - will eventually send a message of the demand. "They shape opinion, but their opinions can also be shaped - especially since they are so devoid of one"
Which is why it's important to give this movie good numbers. So - go see it - it's very good!
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Jun 24th, 2004 at 10:59:27 PM EST
link
The Hunting of the President
I have just returned from the Angelika theater thrilled after seing the movie and getting the chance to discuss it with none other than Joe Conason.
For those who don't know it, Angelika is an art movie house/coffee house in NYC, where Noho meets Soho.
I heard Conason on Air America last night saying that he was so thrilled to havr his movie play there that he took a picture of the marquis. I also heard he will come by to talk about the movie (he will again tomorrow after the 7:45 showing), so I went.
The movie moves fast through less characters than appear in the book - but still conveys the incredible story (it WAS a VAST conspiracy Mr Thomason!)
It has emotional moments - the Susan McDougal interview, funny ones and infuriating ones.
By the end, when a smiling Clinton picture appears, the audience applauded.
The ending also tied the events to the present day (they tested themselves, next thing, they stole an election, redistricted Texas, lied us into a war)
The "where are they now" notes were histerical - and helped difuse the tension of the story ("Paula Jones posed for Penthhouse and was beaten by Tonya Harding" "Susan McDougal wrote a best seller and hopes for a match with Ken Starr" I won't give them all away...
Enough said, there were applause at the end.
Joe Conason asked us if we liked the movie - and since we did, please tell our friends. The questions followed - and there were all great.
My favorite answer is the one that gave the title of this. Answering a quesrion about Clinton, Conason said: "He is in this story like the Maltese Falcon - ties it all up, but the story is not about him, but about the people who tried to get him.
He told us he didn't write the script, but all the interviews in the movie were done by Gene Lyons and him.
They had had trouble getting actual news footage from the networks - for the obvious reasons.
Asked if Clinton liked the movie, he told us he attended the premiere and just today gave him an interview for Salon and told him he did.
You'd be surprised to find out who else liked it. Asked about Carlyle buying Loews theatres, he said that if it's profitable, they'll play it. That one of the distributors for this movie was Fox and he was told that Rupert Murdoch saw it and liked it.
I finally got a chance to ask my question. I mentioned first the a propos resignation of Ted Olson then I asked if he thinks that the NY Times will ever apologize for Whitewater.
I mentioned Michiko Kahutani disgusting page one review and the fact that she chastized Clinton for not apologizing for Whitewater (among others).
I told him I wrote them about it and the ombudsman wrote me today that the review will be adressed by Daniel Okrent in the week in review section of the Sunday edition.
He said he is quite sure NY Times will never apologize for Whitewater. They had quite a few stories for which they had to - Wen Ho lee, Jason Blair, Judith Miller, but this will not be one of them.
As for ms Kahutani, she couldn't know the truth about Whitewater as she gets her information from....the NY Times.
He spoke in the end of the possibility of changing the way the media reports. The sales of the books critical of Bush, his and Moore movies - will eventually send a message of the demand. "They shape opinion, but their opinions can also be shaped - especially since they are so devoid of one"
Which is why it's important to give this movie good numbers. So - go see it - it's very good!
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
Here's Chris, on DU, answering to a bitchy Chucky follower
ChrisHeinz (12 posts) Thu Jun-17-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I take offense to that.
I have been on this board for a long time and know that AP has always passionately backed John Edwards. I would prefer if you continued to be pro-Edwards and not attack me for my opinion. But I think it is worse to attack me because of my family's wealth. It seems a little unfair, maybe even a little like what the people across the aisle are trying to do with JK himself. So, in my defense, let's review:
1. I dont advise JK what to do, and that is especially true of this VP issue.
2. I gave up my job (and yes, that hurts my pocketbook though I'll be fine) to join this campaign and have been talking to voters all over the country for 18 months. It's been my honor. Through it, I think I have a very good sense of what's on people's minds, because I hear it (almost) every day.
3. I am proud of my family's tradition in public service and that my father, mother and step father didn't leave well enough alone and live comfortably. Rather, they work for the public good. That's my model, please dont discourage it.
I find it odd that me having been very pro edwards would generate such a reaction.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=551081&mesg_id=551341&page=
ChrisHeinz (12 posts) Thu Jun-17-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I take offense to that.
I have been on this board for a long time and know that AP has always passionately backed John Edwards. I would prefer if you continued to be pro-Edwards and not attack me for my opinion. But I think it is worse to attack me because of my family's wealth. It seems a little unfair, maybe even a little like what the people across the aisle are trying to do with JK himself. So, in my defense, let's review:
1. I dont advise JK what to do, and that is especially true of this VP issue.
2. I gave up my job (and yes, that hurts my pocketbook though I'll be fine) to join this campaign and have been talking to voters all over the country for 18 months. It's been my honor. Through it, I think I have a very good sense of what's on people's minds, because I hear it (almost) every day.
3. I am proud of my family's tradition in public service and that my father, mother and step father didn't leave well enough alone and live comfortably. Rather, they work for the public good. That's my model, please dont discourage it.
I find it odd that me having been very pro edwards would generate such a reaction.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=551081&mesg_id=551341&page=
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
The Diebold memos
The Diebold memos:
Here's one from 2000:
"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to *why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022* when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here 'looking dumb'." [source]
http://scdc.sccs.swarthmore.edu/diebold/
The Diebold memos:
Here's one from 2000:
"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to *why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022* when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here 'looking dumb'." [source]
http://scdc.sccs.swarthmore.edu/diebold/
Mesg #295773 "I'm confused by the Public Display of Advice ..."
Author samela
on the part of senators and/or purported "Democratic strategists." PDA, for short.
Seems to me like everyone should stay out of it. Because the more "advice" that is leaked to the papers the more Kerry is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
To me (but what do I know), it sort of puts a negative on Kerry choosing Edwards, since if he chooses him, it doesn't look like his first major decision is his own, but one forced upon him. Maybe it can be spun differently, but I can see that as a problem. (On the other hand, in a more positive light, if he does choose Edwards, he can be seen as being true to the party. Um, the same party that has wimped out on us more than once, I hate to say. So I won't. Oops, I did.)
So, one way of looking at it is that this advice provides the kiss of death for Edwards as the choice ... since Kerry looks like a follower instead of a leader if he takes it. Son of a Mill Worker is not my choice, but he might be Kerry's, so I really think everyone should shut up and let him make his own decision.
I still think there's a possibility that "none of the above" will be the choice ... meaning someone none of us or no one in the press has suspected. When you least expect it, you're elected, so to speak.
Who knows. I'd sort of like the decision to be over already, though.
Author samela
on the part of senators and/or purported "Democratic strategists." PDA, for short.
Seems to me like everyone should stay out of it. Because the more "advice" that is leaked to the papers the more Kerry is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
To me (but what do I know), it sort of puts a negative on Kerry choosing Edwards, since if he chooses him, it doesn't look like his first major decision is his own, but one forced upon him. Maybe it can be spun differently, but I can see that as a problem. (On the other hand, in a more positive light, if he does choose Edwards, he can be seen as being true to the party. Um, the same party that has wimped out on us more than once, I hate to say. So I won't. Oops, I did.)
So, one way of looking at it is that this advice provides the kiss of death for Edwards as the choice ... since Kerry looks like a follower instead of a leader if he takes it. Son of a Mill Worker is not my choice, but he might be Kerry's, so I really think everyone should shut up and let him make his own decision.
I still think there's a possibility that "none of the above" will be the choice ... meaning someone none of us or no one in the press has suspected. When you least expect it, you're elected, so to speak.
Who knows. I'd sort of like the decision to be over already, though.
[new] (#221) (No rating)
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 06/15/2004 12:12:51 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Spongebob Squarepants would make a better VP than Edwards:
1. He's much more polite and wouldn't hot the spotlight.
2. His natural absorbancy will protect him from Rovarian onslaughts and from leaking any private information. It would also allow him to help Kerry clean up after the mess the current administration will leave him.
3. He looks good in a tie for formal functions.
4. He is punctual and always shows up to perform his duties at work, unlike Senator Gone.
5. He is a favorite of younger voters.
See - even a cartoon character has more qualifications than certain other media creations!
by Lara (Lara at forclark dot com) on 06/15/2004 12:12:51 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Spongebob Squarepants would make a better VP than Edwards:
1. He's much more polite and wouldn't hot the spotlight.
2. His natural absorbancy will protect him from Rovarian onslaughts and from leaking any private information. It would also allow him to help Kerry clean up after the mess the current administration will leave him.
3. He looks good in a tie for formal functions.
4. He is punctual and always shows up to perform his duties at work, unlike Senator Gone.
5. He is a favorite of younger voters.
See - even a cartoon character has more qualifications than certain other media creations!
(#22) (Rated 5.00/1)
by C4Clark on 06/15/2004 09:07:14 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
GOOD MORNING, ALL MY CCN FRIENDS...
I have just finished having the "highlights" of the last thread or so read to me. I'd like to say something about the subject of "Kerry's VP Furor". I hope you'll indulge me, and consider what I have to say as someone who (for the hundredth time...) has SUPPORTED JOHN KERRY FOR 30+ YEARS here in Massachusetts.
It is often said that it is easier to be a vegetarian after you see how the sausage is made. Politics is like sausage. It ain't a pretty thing to watch while it's happening. Having watched Kerry "make sausage" all my adult life finally led me to support Wes Clark. The reason is obvious, and if you've ever read about my support for Clark, you all know why.
What you are all witnessing right now is what I've come to refer to as THE KERRY MOMENT. It happens in EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN IN WHICH HE RUNS.
He waits JUST a moment too long to respond to a crisis in the making, or to an attack that has been made. AND THEN CAVES TO THE PRESSURE FROM THOSE AROUND HIM TO DO SOMETHING.
Usually, by the time he is FORCED to make a decision that should have been made with a cooler, clearer head, his indecision has left him at the mercy of every opinion of every advisor around him and he JUST DOES THE EASY, EXPEDIENT, and may I say, POPULAR THING. So, when he said the VP decision would be his alone, I was sceptical.
And now I see Kerry painted into a corner by his own lack of the ability to JUST DO THE BOLD, COURAGEOUS THING. Look closely... sausage is about to be made. IT IS A CLASSIC "KERRY MOMENT" you are witnessing. I went to bed last night positively convinced Wes Clark was our next VP. I no longer feel that is a firm belief.
What USUSALLY follows this "Kerry Moment", you see, is the action his inability to make a decision based on his gut. IN EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN FOR 30+ YEARS, I can tell you that that has meant:
-- He makes the popular, easy, expedient choice.
-- Immediately he has "buyer's remorse", and goes into a sort of "depression" over what he's decided.
-- Loses the "fire in his belly" from the depression, and immediately begins to plummet in the polls (sound familiar yet?)
After that, his staff usually goes into DEFCON 4 MODE, and pulls some sort of rabbit out of the hat, whilst slapping him silly until he awakes just in time to pull a squeaker win out at the end.
It's goind to take more than a staff that can do DEFCON 4, and I feel the odds are against him this time. I don't feel a "squeaker" against Bush is possible to win. BushCo is going to have to be stomped but good, or they will win. My feelings for Edwards aside, he willnot be the helpmate in any stomping. He must NOT be chosen.
But, will Kerry be able to resist the calls from his Party to choose Edwards --whose PR people have made look pretty, popular, populist, and thoroughly electable? Or will he AVOID the catastrophic ending to this "Kerry Moment" for the first time since I've known him, and choose Wes Clark, who is ready, willing, and able to help with the stomping but good?
Stay tuned. As Sybil says watch and listen.
I'm not optomistic. But, I hope and pray, and frankly, look forward to coming back after Kerry's moment of truth (when his "message" to us about him is clear), and apologize for being as pessimistic as I am right now. I just wish I didn't have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that I'm not going to have to.
THE "KERRY MOMENT" HAS ARRIVED. WATCH AND LISTEN. WHAT YOU SEE IS SAUSAGE BEING MADE.
Edwards or Clark? Watching and waiting...
By TC
(posted by C4Clark)
by C4Clark on 06/15/2004 09:07:14 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
GOOD MORNING, ALL MY CCN FRIENDS...
I have just finished having the "highlights" of the last thread or so read to me. I'd like to say something about the subject of "Kerry's VP Furor". I hope you'll indulge me, and consider what I have to say as someone who (for the hundredth time...) has SUPPORTED JOHN KERRY FOR 30+ YEARS here in Massachusetts.
It is often said that it is easier to be a vegetarian after you see how the sausage is made. Politics is like sausage. It ain't a pretty thing to watch while it's happening. Having watched Kerry "make sausage" all my adult life finally led me to support Wes Clark. The reason is obvious, and if you've ever read about my support for Clark, you all know why.
What you are all witnessing right now is what I've come to refer to as THE KERRY MOMENT. It happens in EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN IN WHICH HE RUNS.
He waits JUST a moment too long to respond to a crisis in the making, or to an attack that has been made. AND THEN CAVES TO THE PRESSURE FROM THOSE AROUND HIM TO DO SOMETHING.
Usually, by the time he is FORCED to make a decision that should have been made with a cooler, clearer head, his indecision has left him at the mercy of every opinion of every advisor around him and he JUST DOES THE EASY, EXPEDIENT, and may I say, POPULAR THING. So, when he said the VP decision would be his alone, I was sceptical.
And now I see Kerry painted into a corner by his own lack of the ability to JUST DO THE BOLD, COURAGEOUS THING. Look closely... sausage is about to be made. IT IS A CLASSIC "KERRY MOMENT" you are witnessing. I went to bed last night positively convinced Wes Clark was our next VP. I no longer feel that is a firm belief.
What USUSALLY follows this "Kerry Moment", you see, is the action his inability to make a decision based on his gut. IN EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN FOR 30+ YEARS, I can tell you that that has meant:
-- He makes the popular, easy, expedient choice.
-- Immediately he has "buyer's remorse", and goes into a sort of "depression" over what he's decided.
-- Loses the "fire in his belly" from the depression, and immediately begins to plummet in the polls (sound familiar yet?)
After that, his staff usually goes into DEFCON 4 MODE, and pulls some sort of rabbit out of the hat, whilst slapping him silly until he awakes just in time to pull a squeaker win out at the end.
It's goind to take more than a staff that can do DEFCON 4, and I feel the odds are against him this time. I don't feel a "squeaker" against Bush is possible to win. BushCo is going to have to be stomped but good, or they will win. My feelings for Edwards aside, he willnot be the helpmate in any stomping. He must NOT be chosen.
But, will Kerry be able to resist the calls from his Party to choose Edwards --whose PR people have made look pretty, popular, populist, and thoroughly electable? Or will he AVOID the catastrophic ending to this "Kerry Moment" for the first time since I've known him, and choose Wes Clark, who is ready, willing, and able to help with the stomping but good?
Stay tuned. As Sybil says watch and listen.
I'm not optomistic. But, I hope and pray, and frankly, look forward to coming back after Kerry's moment of truth (when his "message" to us about him is clear), and apologize for being as pessimistic as I am right now. I just wish I didn't have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that I'm not going to have to.
THE "KERRY MOMENT" HAS ARRIVED. WATCH AND LISTEN. WHAT YOU SEE IS SAUSAGE BEING MADE.
Edwards or Clark? Watching and waiting...
By TC
(posted by C4Clark)
[new] (#84) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Donna Z on 06/15/2004 10:27:05 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yes, yes, yes.
Thank you for your perspective TC; I knew there had to be an explanation for this ridiculous process that I am watching.
* The Edwards's blatant manipulation of this process should have been nipped a month ago, with a polite precursory review of his records, and a thanks but no thanks to two Senators named John on the ticket.
Kerry knows that Edwards has no leadership skills and no experience on the world stage.
Promise Edwards a cabinet position (Sec. of Commerce is perfect) get him off your back, and get down to the business of acting like a leader.
I don't know how Kerry can now bow out of the Edwards's thing with any grace at all. I have never seen such a flawed process of selecting a VP.
* Kerry has been drawn along by the tidal press rather than taken control. I am worried that you are correct. That McCain thing is a fine example of what directionless process this has been. No one seems to believe me on this blog, but I tell you truly, Kerry actually did approach McCain last summer. This was a serious proposal not a PR stunt.
For someone who promised that the people being vetted would be treated with dignity and privacy, I must say I am shocked.
TC please take care, we can only control our own minds.
by Donna Z on 06/15/2004 10:27:05 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Yes, yes, yes.
Thank you for your perspective TC; I knew there had to be an explanation for this ridiculous process that I am watching.
* The Edwards's blatant manipulation of this process should have been nipped a month ago, with a polite precursory review of his records, and a thanks but no thanks to two Senators named John on the ticket.
Kerry knows that Edwards has no leadership skills and no experience on the world stage.
Promise Edwards a cabinet position (Sec. of Commerce is perfect) get him off your back, and get down to the business of acting like a leader.
I don't know how Kerry can now bow out of the Edwards's thing with any grace at all. I have never seen such a flawed process of selecting a VP.
* Kerry has been drawn along by the tidal press rather than taken control. I am worried that you are correct. That McCain thing is a fine example of what directionless process this has been. No one seems to believe me on this blog, but I tell you truly, Kerry actually did approach McCain last summer. This was a serious proposal not a PR stunt.
For someone who promised that the people being vetted would be treated with dignity and privacy, I must say I am shocked.
TC please take care, we can only control our own minds.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Ha!Ha! Check out this Chucky-gasm from DU:
chimpymustgo (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-13-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. He's tweaked the "speech". AP my heart is just about to burst.
He's talking about optimism and inspiration and what is possible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=54 7515#547879
I of course asked if "tweaking" was even legal...;-)
chimpymustgo (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-13-04 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. He's tweaked the "speech". AP my heart is just about to burst.
He's talking about optimism and inspiration and what is possible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=54 7515#547879
I of course asked if "tweaking" was even legal...;-)
(#163) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Donna Z on 06/14/2004 12:35:16 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I hear there are some great Dean supporter out there, but my experience on the internet just leaves shaking my head. The fought constantly about Dean being the "true" anti-war candidate, then they turned around and support Edwards. No sense. No sense at all.
The Dean turned Edwards folks drove me away from DU. I can't deal with their know-nothing, say-anything attitude.
by Donna Z on 06/14/2004 12:35:16 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
I hear there are some great Dean supporter out there, but my experience on the internet just leaves shaking my head. The fought constantly about Dean being the "true" anti-war candidate, then they turned around and support Edwards. No sense. No sense at all.
The Dean turned Edwards folks drove me away from DU. I can't deal with their know-nothing, say-anything attitude.
yesterday, in the style section of the NYT there was a puff piece about DC's new socialite du jour - Juleana Weiss. What was mentioned in passing was the fact that she wears two hats - profoundly incompatible with each other: Cheney's spokeswoman AND registered lobyist for...the new Iraqi givernment.
Photos meant to show her glamorous and "bipartisan" - had her with a Mr Burns looking Cheney, Ashcroft, Greenspan, Chalabi and...Donna Brazile.
Photos meant to show her glamorous and "bipartisan" - had her with a Mr Burns looking Cheney, Ashcroft, Greenspan, Chalabi and...Donna Brazile.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Digby - before the Raygun Death:
Uh Oh
I've been worried about this. When Ronald Reagan dies, the Right and its media handmaidens are going to go into a fit of maudlin masturbation the likes of which the world has never seen. It will be non-stop GOP triumphalism from dawn to dusk. JFK's funeral will look like a trailer park trash $2,000 special compared to the spectacle we are going to endure for days on end. Lay in a supply of pepto-bismol. It's not in their DNA to handle this with any grace, restraint or class.
And, unfortunately, it will serve to reinforce the delusion that Republicans, even stupid ones, are the right people to lead us on the world stage. Reagan, after all, personally smote communism with one hand tied behind his back. Everybody knows that. And if they didn't before the impending canonization, they soon will. Unfortunately, he didn't have time to take out "evil" before he was forced to retire. Thank Gawd Crusader Codpiece is here to fulfill his legacy.
By the time we're done, The Reagan Cult headed by swami Grover Norquist, will have probably succeeded in renaming the country the Ronald Reagan States of America.
Uh Oh
I've been worried about this. When Ronald Reagan dies, the Right and its media handmaidens are going to go into a fit of maudlin masturbation the likes of which the world has never seen. It will be non-stop GOP triumphalism from dawn to dusk. JFK's funeral will look like a trailer park trash $2,000 special compared to the spectacle we are going to endure for days on end. Lay in a supply of pepto-bismol. It's not in their DNA to handle this with any grace, restraint or class.
And, unfortunately, it will serve to reinforce the delusion that Republicans, even stupid ones, are the right people to lead us on the world stage. Reagan, after all, personally smote communism with one hand tied behind his back. Everybody knows that. And if they didn't before the impending canonization, they soon will. Unfortunately, he didn't have time to take out "evil" before he was forced to retire. Thank Gawd Crusader Codpiece is here to fulfill his legacy.
By the time we're done, The Reagan Cult headed by swami Grover Norquist, will have probably succeeded in renaming the country the Ronald Reagan States of America.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Bradbury has hissy fit at Moore re: title
a fit answer:
gratuitous (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-04-04 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. Fire calls Ray Bradbury a dumb bleep
"The least Bradbury could do is change the title of his little knock-off novel," said Fire from its Santa Monica home today. "I mean, I've been around for a lot longer than Ray Bradbury . . . well, a couple of months, anyway. I tried to contact him about using me as a character in his novel without my permission, but to no avail. I suppose that maybe I should visit his house, and relieve the world of any more of his hack scribblings."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1719636&mesg_id=1719766&page=
a fit answer:
gratuitous (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-04-04 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. Fire calls Ray Bradbury a dumb bleep
"The least Bradbury could do is change the title of his little knock-off novel," said Fire from its Santa Monica home today. "I mean, I've been around for a lot longer than Ray Bradbury . . . well, a couple of months, anyway. I tried to contact him about using me as a character in his novel without my permission, but to no avail. I suppose that maybe I should visit his house, and relieve the world of any more of his hack scribblings."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1719636&mesg_id=1719766&page=
Thursday, June 03, 2004
General Clark came in first on the MSNBC Veepstakes again. The blurb reads:
"For the third straight week, the general stays well ahead of the pack as Veepstakes voters continue to ponder the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Clark's military resume may be too attractive for Kerry to pass up, given the Nov. 2 could well be a one-issue election."
McCain came in number two and Edwards number three. People just won't drop the McCain thing. The voing averages since the beginning are: Clark 1.9, McCain 2.1 and Edwards 1.5.
"For the third straight week, the general stays well ahead of the pack as Veepstakes voters continue to ponder the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Clark's military resume may be too attractive for Kerry to pass up, given the Nov. 2 could well be a one-issue election."
McCain came in number two and Edwards number three. People just won't drop the McCain thing. The voing averages since the beginning are: Clark 1.9, McCain 2.1 and Edwards 1.5.
(#82) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Donna Z on 06/02/2004 11:44:52 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Having just about caught up with the threads I missed, I'm ready for a few quick comments:
First, thank you to dear wonderful Tina! My WesPAC button arrived today, and everyone is correct that KnightRider deserves major Kudos. Team Clark is one amazing organization.
Wes's email also arrived. I will be contributing although I'm considering snail mail for that. All $$$ will go to him and Mr Z will appreciate my sparing the credit card. I'll make it so when I'm on the computer that is connected to the printer, and yes, I'll post at WesDems to make the pie higher.
I wrote to CNN about cutting the Kerry press conference...Good idea Blackie in Canada. I also requested less opinion and more facts and policy.
Kay, the call is wonderful news! One thing that might be mentioned is Clark's endorsement by the American Indian Tribes. That is a very important segment of your voters. IIRC, Kerry did not fill out the questionaire for that endorsement, and Clark's appearance at some of the summer gatherings might help with the People. I would certainly suggest reaching out early and often to them. Unlocking victory will take many keys. My friend who lives part of the year in NM and is an American Indian, tells me that the big issue is educatiion...education...education.
So General Clark is in the Ukraine? When I told Mr. Z that Wes was at a press conference there and didn't have on the headset for the translation, Mr. Z's comment was: shrub needs them when the conference is in English. Hahahahaha!
I wish we could write to the person who writes those blurbs on the MSNBC VP poll. Military my a**. Does he realize that Wes has many degrees including economics, and many talents, and many, many interests. Yes, a winning General knows about foreign policy and the military, but limiting those comments to only those credentials misrepresents Clark and fails to credit those of us who support him. (Huff!)
Compliments to all for a most informative blog. Thanks for the links, your time, and your encouraging words.
by Donna Z on 06/02/2004 11:44:52 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Having just about caught up with the threads I missed, I'm ready for a few quick comments:
First, thank you to dear wonderful Tina! My WesPAC button arrived today, and everyone is correct that KnightRider deserves major Kudos. Team Clark is one amazing organization.
Wes's email also arrived. I will be contributing although I'm considering snail mail for that. All $$$ will go to him and Mr Z will appreciate my sparing the credit card. I'll make it so when I'm on the computer that is connected to the printer, and yes, I'll post at WesDems to make the pie higher.
I wrote to CNN about cutting the Kerry press conference...Good idea Blackie in Canada. I also requested less opinion and more facts and policy.
Kay, the call is wonderful news! One thing that might be mentioned is Clark's endorsement by the American Indian Tribes. That is a very important segment of your voters. IIRC, Kerry did not fill out the questionaire for that endorsement, and Clark's appearance at some of the summer gatherings might help with the People. I would certainly suggest reaching out early and often to them. Unlocking victory will take many keys. My friend who lives part of the year in NM and is an American Indian, tells me that the big issue is educatiion...education...education.
So General Clark is in the Ukraine? When I told Mr. Z that Wes was at a press conference there and didn't have on the headset for the translation, Mr. Z's comment was: shrub needs them when the conference is in English. Hahahahaha!
I wish we could write to the person who writes those blurbs on the MSNBC VP poll. Military my a**. Does he realize that Wes has many degrees including economics, and many talents, and many, many interests. Yes, a winning General knows about foreign policy and the military, but limiting those comments to only those credentials misrepresents Clark and fails to credit those of us who support him. (Huff!)
Compliments to all for a most informative blog. Thanks for the links, your time, and your encouraging words.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
trekbiker (52 posts) Wed Jun-02-04 07:43 PM
W hures a lawyer
some freeper posts on the Plame thread... aaaahahahaaa!!
Honestly! You'd think we are pratically catatonic, peeing on ourselves, and rocking back and forth wildly. It's gotta take more than this to scare us, fellow FReepers. Think about all the trials and tribulations we've endured. And we're gonna fold like cheap cardtables just because W. has contacted an outside attorney?? C'mon. Let's just stop. And think this through logically. And calmly
I don't blame him for getting advice from an attorney. With the HATE BUSH CROWD I wouldn't put anything passed them. We know that President Bush didn't leak anything because he hates leaks.
In addition to the Plame leak, there is also the Chalabi affair, which I think is extremely weird and still a huge mystery. That worries me more than this; something very weird was going on around Chalabi. Either someone in the DOD or State was feeding him secrets, or elements in the CIA are trying to undermine Bush, or . . . ?
"I seriously doubt that Bush himself leaked anything to Novak. "
Me neither....not to be mean to Dubya, but I don't think they let him make phone calls to the press very often.
"We're doomed. DOOMED!!"
DOOMED!
WOW, what if this were actually true.
What if it is?
What do you make of it?
Since we know President Bush didn't do anything wrong, it can't be bad in and of itself.
So what's with the "WOW"?
This makes me VERY nervous. Why do I get the sinking feeling something big is going down?? Time for some Pepto.
Take a chill pill please .. this is nothing .. just the liberals over reacting
I don't get it. Wilson is rabidly anti-Bush. This makes everything he does very suspect to begin with. He claimed to have "investigated" the yellowcake report in Africa when he actually did no such thing, according to the Africans themselves. He said his wife's identity was leaked when half of social Washington already knew exactly who she was.
Why the investigation? Where's the scandal? I am amazed after 8 years of legitimate abuse of power, obstruction of justice and scandals, that the press is consumed with (1) Panties on Iraqi heads as "torture", and (2) The non-Leak of an Overt Covert Agent.
W hures a lawyer
some freeper posts on the Plame thread... aaaahahahaaa!!
Honestly! You'd think we are pratically catatonic, peeing on ourselves, and rocking back and forth wildly. It's gotta take more than this to scare us, fellow FReepers. Think about all the trials and tribulations we've endured. And we're gonna fold like cheap cardtables just because W. has contacted an outside attorney?? C'mon. Let's just stop. And think this through logically. And calmly
I don't blame him for getting advice from an attorney. With the HATE BUSH CROWD I wouldn't put anything passed them. We know that President Bush didn't leak anything because he hates leaks.
In addition to the Plame leak, there is also the Chalabi affair, which I think is extremely weird and still a huge mystery. That worries me more than this; something very weird was going on around Chalabi. Either someone in the DOD or State was feeding him secrets, or elements in the CIA are trying to undermine Bush, or . . . ?
"I seriously doubt that Bush himself leaked anything to Novak. "
Me neither....not to be mean to Dubya, but I don't think they let him make phone calls to the press very often.
"We're doomed. DOOMED!!"
DOOMED!
WOW, what if this were actually true.
What if it is?
What do you make of it?
Since we know President Bush didn't do anything wrong, it can't be bad in and of itself.
So what's with the "WOW"?
This makes me VERY nervous. Why do I get the sinking feeling something big is going down?? Time for some Pepto.
Take a chill pill please .. this is nothing .. just the liberals over reacting
I don't get it. Wilson is rabidly anti-Bush. This makes everything he does very suspect to begin with. He claimed to have "investigated" the yellowcake report in Africa when he actually did no such thing, according to the Africans themselves. He said his wife's identity was leaked when half of social Washington already knew exactly who she was.
Why the investigation? Where's the scandal? I am amazed after 8 years of legitimate abuse of power, obstruction of justice and scandals, that the press is consumed with (1) Panties on Iraqi heads as "torture", and (2) The non-Leak of an Overt Covert Agent.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
The New York Times's bimonthly Democratic hand-wringing report
http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P1268_0_1_0_C
When I glanced at the headlines in the New York Times online yesterday, the title of this story caught my eye:
Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
I didn't bother to read the article. When it comes to elections, this sort of moment-to-moment microanalysis doesn't interest me much; I prefer to take the long view.
But it did strike me that I'd seen Nagourney's name under a similar headline before. And then it occurred to me that I'd had this same thought before as well -- so he must have some kind of habit of writing gloomy articles about Democrats' 2004 prospects.
So, I figured it was time for a little research.
MORE...
Searching the New York Times website for Nagourney's byline from early 2003 to today produced the following results related to overall Democratic prospects (as opposed to the ins and outs of primary results, individual candidates' pre-primary strategies, etc.):
May 27, 2004
Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 2, 2004
KERRY STRUGGLING TO FIND A THEME, DEMOCRATS FEAR
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
April 8, 2004,
Battles in Iraq Bring Problems for Bush And Kerry as Well
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE
April 1, 2004
Political Memo; Bad Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN
March 21, 2004
Political Memo; Some Democrats Say Kerry Must Get Back on the Trail
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ADAM NAGOURNEY
March 13, 2004
Political Memo; Testing, Testing. Shrewd Politics or Kerry Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
These were preceded by a brief two-week "honeymoon" as Kerry swept the primaries:
February 9, 2004
Democrats See Unified Party For November
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
January 29, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: DEMOCRATS; Party Leaders Express Relief at the Emergence of Kerry
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Before that, though? For the most part, nothing but trouble:
January 9, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: IOWA; Tide of Second Thoughts Rises Among Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE; Michael McElroy contributed reporting for this article.
January 1, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE DEMOCRATS; Democrats' Plan for Early Nominee May Be Costly
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
December 29, 2003
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: POLITICAL MEMO; Stumping Gamely, the Democrats Fight Against Most Voters' Holiday Indifference
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
December 18, 2003
Candidates in Presidential Contest Are Failing to Move Democratic Primary Voters, Poll Shows
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
December 10, 2003
Democrats Wrestle With the Gore Factor
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and EDWARD WYATT
August 31, 2003
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN; Worried Democrats See Daunting '04 Hurdles
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 29, 2003
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 18, 2003
Political Memo; Tug of Constituencies Strains Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 9, 2003
Campaign Memo; Tricky Question for Democrats: When Is Open Season on One Another?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
June 15, 2003
A Fund-Raising Sprint by Bush Will Put His Rivals Far Behind
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 25, 2003
THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING, BUT WHO'S WATCHING?
By Adam Nagourney
May 17, 2003
Kerry Introduces Health Plan, Pointing Up Divisions Among Democratic Contenders
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 4, 2003
Democrats' First Presidential Debate Shows Party Fissures
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 4, 2003
Listen Up, Democrats: Why 2004 Isn't 1992
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
April 16, 2003
Looking at Postwar Bush, Glum Democrats Ponder How to Win in 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
March 19, 2003
Divided Democrats Concerned About 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Now, I don't entirely blame Nagourney for this (though it is kind of suspicious when you pile the articles up like that) -- he's got to write about something, after all, and I'm sure each of his stories has quotes from kibitzing Democrats backing up his thesis.
But it does confirm, as I said at the beginning, that you shouldn't take these stories too seriously.
http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P1268_0_1_0_C
When I glanced at the headlines in the New York Times online yesterday, the title of this story caught my eye:
Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
I didn't bother to read the article. When it comes to elections, this sort of moment-to-moment microanalysis doesn't interest me much; I prefer to take the long view.
But it did strike me that I'd seen Nagourney's name under a similar headline before. And then it occurred to me that I'd had this same thought before as well -- so he must have some kind of habit of writing gloomy articles about Democrats' 2004 prospects.
So, I figured it was time for a little research.
MORE...
Searching the New York Times website for Nagourney's byline from early 2003 to today produced the following results related to overall Democratic prospects (as opposed to the ins and outs of primary results, individual candidates' pre-primary strategies, etc.):
May 27, 2004
Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 2, 2004
KERRY STRUGGLING TO FIND A THEME, DEMOCRATS FEAR
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
April 8, 2004,
Battles in Iraq Bring Problems for Bush And Kerry as Well
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE
April 1, 2004
Political Memo; Bad Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN
March 21, 2004
Political Memo; Some Democrats Say Kerry Must Get Back on the Trail
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ADAM NAGOURNEY
March 13, 2004
Political Memo; Testing, Testing. Shrewd Politics or Kerry Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
These were preceded by a brief two-week "honeymoon" as Kerry swept the primaries:
February 9, 2004
Democrats See Unified Party For November
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
January 29, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: DEMOCRATS; Party Leaders Express Relief at the Emergence of Kerry
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Before that, though? For the most part, nothing but trouble:
January 9, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: IOWA; Tide of Second Thoughts Rises Among Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE; Michael McElroy contributed reporting for this article.
January 1, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE DEMOCRATS; Democrats' Plan for Early Nominee May Be Costly
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
December 29, 2003
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: POLITICAL MEMO; Stumping Gamely, the Democrats Fight Against Most Voters' Holiday Indifference
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
December 18, 2003
Candidates in Presidential Contest Are Failing to Move Democratic Primary Voters, Poll Shows
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
December 10, 2003
Democrats Wrestle With the Gore Factor
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and EDWARD WYATT
August 31, 2003
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN; Worried Democrats See Daunting '04 Hurdles
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 29, 2003
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 18, 2003
Political Memo; Tug of Constituencies Strains Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
July 9, 2003
Campaign Memo; Tricky Question for Democrats: When Is Open Season on One Another?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
June 15, 2003
A Fund-Raising Sprint by Bush Will Put His Rivals Far Behind
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 25, 2003
THE DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING, BUT WHO'S WATCHING?
By Adam Nagourney
May 17, 2003
Kerry Introduces Health Plan, Pointing Up Divisions Among Democratic Contenders
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 4, 2003
Democrats' First Presidential Debate Shows Party Fissures
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 4, 2003
Listen Up, Democrats: Why 2004 Isn't 1992
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
April 16, 2003
Looking at Postwar Bush, Glum Democrats Ponder How to Win in 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
March 19, 2003
Divided Democrats Concerned About 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Now, I don't entirely blame Nagourney for this (though it is kind of suspicious when you pile the articles up like that) -- he's got to write about something, after all, and I'm sure each of his stories has quotes from kibitzing Democrats backing up his thesis.
But it does confirm, as I said at the beginning, that you shouldn't take these stories too seriously.
Oliphant lies to push Chucky
blm (1000+ posts) Sat May-29-04 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. I would think Oliphanthad paid more attention. Meyerson, a leading columnist on labor/trade issues, observed the Senate climate as a whole in 2002 and had this to say:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/11/meyerson-h.html
Senatorial Heresy
The Democrats rethink free trade.
By Harold Meyerson
Issue Date: 6.17.02
Few things in contemporary American politics have been more certain than the Senate's support for free trade. While the critics and criticisms of global laissez-faire have been growing in number and the House's support for free trade has become increasingly iffy, the Senate has rolled merrily along, Republicans and Democrats alike ratifying whatever trade bill was up for a vote.
Imagine, then, the stunned bewilderment on Capitol Hill, at the White House, and among K Street's cadre of corporate lobbyists on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 14. The Senate had just refused to kill the Dayton-Craig amendment to the bill restoring the president's authority to negotiate fast-track (that is, unamendable by Congress) trade treaties. The amendment, by Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton and Idaho Republican Larry Craig, struck at fast track's very heart. It gave the Senate the right to review, and reject, any language in a trade accord that weakened U.S. anti-dumping laws -- that is, statutes prohibiting other nations from selling steel, computer parts, or any commodity in the United States at artificially low prices intended to damage U.S. manufacturers.
>>>>>>>>>
Not entirely. As we go to press, fast track has yet to come to a final vote in the Senate but is almost sure to pass, with much more Democratic support than it had in the House. Still, Senate Democrats spent mid-May backing all manner of amendments designed to reassert the primacy of U.S. laws and regulations -- in effect, national sovereignty -- over certain aspects of trade accords. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a free-trader who took the lead in the battle for one such amendment and supported almost all the rest, says, "The elements are different this time. There are elements that have raised people's consciousness."
And new elements -- in politics as in chemistry -- merit some scrutiny.
>>>>>>>
By the time fast track came to the House last year, not just California officials but the National League of Cities, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors had sounded the alarm against incorporating Chapter 11. Massachusetts's Kerry offered an amendment to fast track, stripping the bill of its Chapter 11 language, which won the support of 40 Democrats in the course of being defeated.
>>>>>>>>>>
Over the past year, partly through the work of groups such as Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, this arcane knowledge has finally radiated beyond Byrd. The key factor in the Democrats' awakening to their own power, though, is the change in the White House. "You have a Bush administration," says Kerry, "whose entire stance is antithetical to a Clinton administration, which negotiated decent labor and environmental agreements as part of its accord with Jordan. Zoellick has made very clear that he's opposed to that sort of thing."
>>>>>>>>>>
Much more at link
*
*
*
*
I like Edwards alot, and think either he or Clark would make a fine choice as VP, but, Oliphant is stretching to say that Edwards influenced Kerry on free trade. In fact, Kerry wrote the amendment to the free trade deal that was strongly backed by labor. Unfortunately that amendment was defeated. But, Kerry was always a free trader who believed that the deals should also be made FAIRER for labor and the environment.
blm (1000+ posts) Sat May-29-04 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. I would think Oliphanthad paid more attention. Meyerson, a leading columnist on labor/trade issues, observed the Senate climate as a whole in 2002 and had this to say:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/11/meyerson-h.html
Senatorial Heresy
The Democrats rethink free trade.
By Harold Meyerson
Issue Date: 6.17.02
Few things in contemporary American politics have been more certain than the Senate's support for free trade. While the critics and criticisms of global laissez-faire have been growing in number and the House's support for free trade has become increasingly iffy, the Senate has rolled merrily along, Republicans and Democrats alike ratifying whatever trade bill was up for a vote.
Imagine, then, the stunned bewilderment on Capitol Hill, at the White House, and among K Street's cadre of corporate lobbyists on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 14. The Senate had just refused to kill the Dayton-Craig amendment to the bill restoring the president's authority to negotiate fast-track (that is, unamendable by Congress) trade treaties. The amendment, by Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton and Idaho Republican Larry Craig, struck at fast track's very heart. It gave the Senate the right to review, and reject, any language in a trade accord that weakened U.S. anti-dumping laws -- that is, statutes prohibiting other nations from selling steel, computer parts, or any commodity in the United States at artificially low prices intended to damage U.S. manufacturers.
>>>>>>>>>
Not entirely. As we go to press, fast track has yet to come to a final vote in the Senate but is almost sure to pass, with much more Democratic support than it had in the House. Still, Senate Democrats spent mid-May backing all manner of amendments designed to reassert the primacy of U.S. laws and regulations -- in effect, national sovereignty -- over certain aspects of trade accords. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a free-trader who took the lead in the battle for one such amendment and supported almost all the rest, says, "The elements are different this time. There are elements that have raised people's consciousness."
And new elements -- in politics as in chemistry -- merit some scrutiny.
>>>>>>>
By the time fast track came to the House last year, not just California officials but the National League of Cities, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors had sounded the alarm against incorporating Chapter 11. Massachusetts's Kerry offered an amendment to fast track, stripping the bill of its Chapter 11 language, which won the support of 40 Democrats in the course of being defeated.
>>>>>>>>>>
Over the past year, partly through the work of groups such as Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, this arcane knowledge has finally radiated beyond Byrd. The key factor in the Democrats' awakening to their own power, though, is the change in the White House. "You have a Bush administration," says Kerry, "whose entire stance is antithetical to a Clinton administration, which negotiated decent labor and environmental agreements as part of its accord with Jordan. Zoellick has made very clear that he's opposed to that sort of thing."
>>>>>>>>>>
Much more at link
*
*
*
*
I like Edwards alot, and think either he or Clark would make a fine choice as VP, but, Oliphant is stretching to say that Edwards influenced Kerry on free trade. In fact, Kerry wrote the amendment to the free trade deal that was strongly backed by labor. Unfortunately that amendment was defeated. But, Kerry was always a free trader who believed that the deals should also be made FAIRER for labor and the environment.
More adventures in Chuckyland
(#5) (No rating)
by C4Clark on 06/01/2004 10:02:52 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Sorry, this got posted at #304.
NOEL, IS THIS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?
"THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THAT BUSH HAS DESTROYED HIMSELF AS AN INTERNATIONAL FIGURE."
Duh, so replace him with an adequate replacement, which John Kerry will never be.
Re:The Elephant in the Room
Posted by gigi
Friday May 28, @11:48PM
Bush has irreparably damaged our nation in the eyes of the world, but especially in the Arab world.....
~~ WRONG ET he has proved that America doe what America SAYS !
It's not enough for us to elect Kerry the next president.
~~ yes that will weaken the view of America in the eyes of the United Nations imo a War Prtoester who protested against his OWN country and He should be allowed to be our President ??
Yeah, we must kiss the butt of His Highness.
Posted by Anonymous
Thursday May 27, @09:10PM
He will GET my respect when he EARNS it, and he hasn't at all earned it at this point. In fact, he almost WRECKED his longshot candidacy with the delayed nomination proposal.
Get real. Not everybody thinks like you do and thinks Kerry is God.
Susan Nunes
Re:PLEASE send me your photo!!!
Posted by gigi
Friday May 28, @10:05PM
...I think that will either allianate Kerry more so or at least make him jealous (as if he isn't already) of John Edwards's firm grassroots support and wild popularity. and for sure go the opposite way of JRE !
with a Washington insider and BIG Ego BILLLIONAIRE like John Kerry does anyone really Think that Kerry will care one WHIT one 'the People' want ?!
I for one do not see Kerry as a person who is necessarily "For the People" but as a ego-trip money -man who, by some 'sicko' twist of fate got the most votes in the primaries.
I agree that if anyone wants to see JRE on the ticket, however they should be (must be) nice to Kerry. etc etc. but I am with Susan Nunes..I believe in honesty first and last and I personally cannot fathom Kerry as the president.
I may be the only odd 'man' out but I am holding out hope for some 'magical moment' to occur which shall catapult John Edwards right into 1st place on the Dem National Ticket.
Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Anonymous
Thursday May 27, @01:42PM
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Edwardstroll
Saturday May 29, @02:20PM
Note from Armymom: You won't see any anti-Kerry stuff on the Clark blog.
Edwards doesn't need abundant foreign policy experience.
He already has more than Bush or Clinton had when they were elected.
Edwards/Sam Nunn would be everything this country needs.
Nunn is so valued in the International/Foreign Policy realm that he has a foreign policy school named after him.
That "no foreign policy experience" crap used against John Edwards was nothing but bologna. He doesn't need an overwhelming amount of it to win.
Clinton had less than Bush 1 did and Bush 2 had less than Gore did.
Edwards inspires, and that's what Americans look for in a leader, and that's the type of leaders that Americans rally around. Kerry doesn't inspire, and in 2000, neither Bush or Gore did, so people voted for the person that they thought they liked the most.
I agree with the anonymous poster, Edwards should be the nominee, and Kerry is a joke.
If Edwards is so good, and he is, why is he not the democratic nominee that we all wanted in the first place? Kerry is not who we want as a leader. The media may have said Kerry is out in front, but the people did not.
The media made up everyones mind by spotlighting Kerry only. Who runs most of the media? Right wing, neoconservatives that's who. Why would they push Kerry to the front? They believe he is beatable. They know Edwards is not.
Senator John Edwards, step up to the plate and hit one out of the park for the American people. Be the man we wanted in the first place. You are our leader of choice. As is your wife. She would do us proud as first lady.
Edwards and McCain 2004. That is the ticket that will win the election. Think about it.
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Edwardstroll
Saturday May 29, @02:20PM
The negative stuff about Kerry is not negative.
It's factual!
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by pskaggsmi
Thursday May 27, @01:59PM
Nah, Democratic primary voters just made a poor choice and the bandwagon out of New Hampshire was too much for JRE given Clark and the media's obsession with the "it's all but over" story.
Bush and Cheney have no military experience FYI.
People dated Dean, and then mistakenly married the "transition" Kerry (looking for stability, even if it was dead boring).
Given the poor state of the Kerry campaign (unbelievable, the strategy seems to keep a low profile throughout the campaign), I think most Dems are reconsidering their vote. But, it's too late.
Yes, I know, people here want everyone to put on their smile faces, but I for one am still sick to my stomach that we ended up with such an uninspiring candidate with only a long-shot chance of winning.
Maybe JRE at VP can help, but I'm just for it because of what it does for JRE when Kerry loses.
Kerry is not it. We can rally all we want. He is not the desired candidate.
Just because the media says so? The polls show Edwards with the same approval rating as Mother Teresa. How is that not electable.
Come on people. We don't have to pick the least of two evils. Lets pick who we want. Lets set a precedent like none other.
Have both parties be elected to the same ticket. The two candidates that can reach across party lines and accomplish good for this country and the world.
Lets get people into the White House that care about our future. Our environment and our commerce. It goes hand in hand. We must make a stand now, or we will lose our democracy and become a gloom and doom society that perpetrates war, anger and fear. As well as, the biggest possible gap between rich and poor.
We don't want or need that. Lets spend our money on educating our children, so they will have the knowledge and tools to raise our country right. Without sides. With the best intentions for everyone. Not just for greed.
Edwards has that ability. How can we change our course? By our voice! It is never too late.
Deena
Seattle, WA
(#5) (No rating)
by C4Clark on 06/01/2004 10:02:52 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Sorry, this got posted at #304.
NOEL, IS THIS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?
"THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THAT BUSH HAS DESTROYED HIMSELF AS AN INTERNATIONAL FIGURE."
Duh, so replace him with an adequate replacement, which John Kerry will never be.
Re:The Elephant in the Room
Posted by gigi
Friday May 28, @11:48PM
Bush has irreparably damaged our nation in the eyes of the world, but especially in the Arab world.....
~~ WRONG ET he has proved that America doe what America SAYS !
It's not enough for us to elect Kerry the next president.
~~ yes that will weaken the view of America in the eyes of the United Nations imo a War Prtoester who protested against his OWN country and He should be allowed to be our President ??
Yeah, we must kiss the butt of His Highness.
Posted by Anonymous
Thursday May 27, @09:10PM
He will GET my respect when he EARNS it, and he hasn't at all earned it at this point. In fact, he almost WRECKED his longshot candidacy with the delayed nomination proposal.
Get real. Not everybody thinks like you do and thinks Kerry is God.
Susan Nunes
Re:PLEASE send me your photo!!!
Posted by gigi
Friday May 28, @10:05PM
...I think that will either allianate Kerry more so or at least make him jealous (as if he isn't already) of John Edwards's firm grassroots support and wild popularity. and for sure go the opposite way of JRE !
with a Washington insider and BIG Ego BILLLIONAIRE like John Kerry does anyone really Think that Kerry will care one WHIT one 'the People' want ?!
I for one do not see Kerry as a person who is necessarily "For the People" but as a ego-trip money -man who, by some 'sicko' twist of fate got the most votes in the primaries.
I agree that if anyone wants to see JRE on the ticket, however they should be (must be) nice to Kerry. etc etc. but I am with Susan Nunes..I believe in honesty first and last and I personally cannot fathom Kerry as the president.
I may be the only odd 'man' out but I am holding out hope for some 'magical moment' to occur which shall catapult John Edwards right into 1st place on the Dem National Ticket.
Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Anonymous
Thursday May 27, @01:42PM
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Edwardstroll
Saturday May 29, @02:20PM
Note from Armymom: You won't see any anti-Kerry stuff on the Clark blog.
Edwards doesn't need abundant foreign policy experience.
He already has more than Bush or Clinton had when they were elected.
Edwards/Sam Nunn would be everything this country needs.
Nunn is so valued in the International/Foreign Policy realm that he has a foreign policy school named after him.
That "no foreign policy experience" crap used against John Edwards was nothing but bologna. He doesn't need an overwhelming amount of it to win.
Clinton had less than Bush 1 did and Bush 2 had less than Gore did.
Edwards inspires, and that's what Americans look for in a leader, and that's the type of leaders that Americans rally around. Kerry doesn't inspire, and in 2000, neither Bush or Gore did, so people voted for the person that they thought they liked the most.
I agree with the anonymous poster, Edwards should be the nominee, and Kerry is a joke.
If Edwards is so good, and he is, why is he not the democratic nominee that we all wanted in the first place? Kerry is not who we want as a leader. The media may have said Kerry is out in front, but the people did not.
The media made up everyones mind by spotlighting Kerry only. Who runs most of the media? Right wing, neoconservatives that's who. Why would they push Kerry to the front? They believe he is beatable. They know Edwards is not.
Senator John Edwards, step up to the plate and hit one out of the park for the American people. Be the man we wanted in the first place. You are our leader of choice. As is your wife. She would do us proud as first lady.
Edwards and McCain 2004. That is the ticket that will win the election. Think about it.
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by Edwardstroll
Saturday May 29, @02:20PM
The negative stuff about Kerry is not negative.
It's factual!
Re:Edwards the real candidate for President!
Posted by pskaggsmi
Thursday May 27, @01:59PM
Nah, Democratic primary voters just made a poor choice and the bandwagon out of New Hampshire was too much for JRE given Clark and the media's obsession with the "it's all but over" story.
Bush and Cheney have no military experience FYI.
People dated Dean, and then mistakenly married the "transition" Kerry (looking for stability, even if it was dead boring).
Given the poor state of the Kerry campaign (unbelievable, the strategy seems to keep a low profile throughout the campaign), I think most Dems are reconsidering their vote. But, it's too late.
Yes, I know, people here want everyone to put on their smile faces, but I for one am still sick to my stomach that we ended up with such an uninspiring candidate with only a long-shot chance of winning.
Maybe JRE at VP can help, but I'm just for it because of what it does for JRE when Kerry loses.
Kerry is not it. We can rally all we want. He is not the desired candidate.
Just because the media says so? The polls show Edwards with the same approval rating as Mother Teresa. How is that not electable.
Come on people. We don't have to pick the least of two evils. Lets pick who we want. Lets set a precedent like none other.
Have both parties be elected to the same ticket. The two candidates that can reach across party lines and accomplish good for this country and the world.
Lets get people into the White House that care about our future. Our environment and our commerce. It goes hand in hand. We must make a stand now, or we will lose our democracy and become a gloom and doom society that perpetrates war, anger and fear. As well as, the biggest possible gap between rich and poor.
We don't want or need that. Lets spend our money on educating our children, so they will have the knowledge and tools to raise our country right. Without sides. With the best intentions for everyone. Not just for greed.
Edwards has that ability. How can we change our course? By our voice! It is never too late.
Deena
Seattle, WA
(#66) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Vicky (Vicky at forclark dot com) on 06/01/2004 11:32:23 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Okay, Monkey, you want a little humor for the day? (Or maybe it will be chagrined frustration...) This is the result of a mock election this past week in a Montana Middle School:
If East Middle School students had the vote, John Kerry and Wesley Clark would trounce their opponents in the primary, and J.D. Lynch and Paul Babb would face-off for chief executive in the general election.
Those are the results of a mock primary election held at the school Wednesday and Thursday. All 700 students voted, casting sample ballots in social studies classes.
In the presidential category, Kerry received 300 votes compared to 167 for John Edwards. Republican Wesley Clark also defeated incumbent President George Bush with 135 votes to 89.
Now, look, Republican Clark TROUNCED Bush. If Montanans think of Clark as having had Republican leanings in the past, all the better for a Kerry-Clark ticket in the mountain states!! It COULD be Montana's version of a not-going-to-happen Kerry-McCain ticket. These kids cast 435 votes for Kerry and Clark opposed to 256 for Edwards and Bush. There's a dynamic operating here that I think we should pay attention to.
Wes is scary smart. Let's hope Kerry is as well.
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2004/05/28/newsbutte_top/hjjfjehbihhbfb.txt
by Vicky (Vicky at forclark dot com) on 06/01/2004 11:32:23 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Okay, Monkey, you want a little humor for the day? (Or maybe it will be chagrined frustration...) This is the result of a mock election this past week in a Montana Middle School:
If East Middle School students had the vote, John Kerry and Wesley Clark would trounce their opponents in the primary, and J.D. Lynch and Paul Babb would face-off for chief executive in the general election.
Those are the results of a mock primary election held at the school Wednesday and Thursday. All 700 students voted, casting sample ballots in social studies classes.
In the presidential category, Kerry received 300 votes compared to 167 for John Edwards. Republican Wesley Clark also defeated incumbent President George Bush with 135 votes to 89.
Now, look, Republican Clark TROUNCED Bush. If Montanans think of Clark as having had Republican leanings in the past, all the better for a Kerry-Clark ticket in the mountain states!! It COULD be Montana's version of a not-going-to-happen Kerry-McCain ticket. These kids cast 435 votes for Kerry and Clark opposed to 256 for Edwards and Bush. There's a dynamic operating here that I think we should pay attention to.
Wes is scary smart. Let's hope Kerry is as well.
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2004/05/28/newsbutte_top/hjjfjehbihhbfb.txt
On NYT
(#69) (No rating)
by Donna Z on 06/01/2004 11:34:28 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Vicky_you are on a roll! I had the Unger piece mailed to myself because this was brought up the other night on the blog. Someone called it "unproven" and a discredited assertion that has been dismissed by the 911 panel. From the article it would seem that there is much more to it.
"Send Dooh Nibor back to Sex-at" -
David Brooks the creep who referred to Clark as "mean" on the NewsHour and iirc, as anti-semitic in the NYT, needs a letter. In his column today he acts as if bushCo's short term tax strategy is great or okay, it is just the long term tax policy that is wandering around "Red Ink Land" without a plan. There is indeed a plan, there has been a plan for years, it is called starve the government so that social programs can be "flushed down the drain." (I put quotes around that but need to check for Norquist's exact words.)
Also, while ranting about the NYT, I think that they need to get off their sword and start researching and honestly reporting the truth. Feeling bad for helping to start a war may look good in the editorial pages, but the WMD does not stand alone, besides, WMDs are soooooo 2003! What about the news they've failed to print? Why are they still sending paychecks to the Kay Sealey and Adam Nourgay (sp.)
(#69) (No rating)
by Donna Z on 06/01/2004 11:34:28 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
Vicky_you are on a roll! I had the Unger piece mailed to myself because this was brought up the other night on the blog. Someone called it "unproven" and a discredited assertion that has been dismissed by the 911 panel. From the article it would seem that there is much more to it.
"Send Dooh Nibor back to Sex-at" -
David Brooks the creep who referred to Clark as "mean" on the NewsHour and iirc, as anti-semitic in the NYT, needs a letter. In his column today he acts as if bushCo's short term tax strategy is great or okay, it is just the long term tax policy that is wandering around "Red Ink Land" without a plan. There is indeed a plan, there has been a plan for years, it is called starve the government so that social programs can be "flushed down the drain." (I put quotes around that but need to check for Norquist's exact words.)
Also, while ranting about the NYT, I think that they need to get off their sword and start researching and honestly reporting the truth. Feeling bad for helping to start a war may look good in the editorial pages, but the WMD does not stand alone, besides, WMDs are soooooo 2003! What about the news they've failed to print? Why are they still sending paychecks to the Kay Sealey and Adam Nourgay (sp.)
On the top-down kerry campaign - Ruth benedict/Clark
[new] (#77) (Rated 5.00/1)
by C4Clark on 05/30/2004 11:27:36 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
G4V, here is the exchange recorded to Ruth Benedict's Blog about her talk with Wes the other night in NYC:
"'Wes. I know you want us to vigorously support John Kerry. That mission in clear; however, the bloggers and people at the grassroots level in the democratic base are finding that mission difficult.'
'But why?' His eyes pierced mine when he asked that question, but I continued.
'Wes, every time the bloggers or others at the grassroots level try to reach out to the Kerry campaign, whether, virtually or physically, we are met with resistance, ignored and in some cases even banned from participating. It has been, at best, a disheartening experience especially when we know you're out here stumping so hard for Kerry.'
Wes' face was cast with a look of gloom after I said this. From his reaction and facial expression, I could tell that it wasn't the first time he was hearing these concerns. He squeezed my hand again and said, 'I know' in his sweet, quiet southern tone.
'There is a rich pool of resources that is going untapped by Kerry's campaign even with our best efforts.'
His hand clenched mine as he spoke again. 'I know. If John knew this was happening, he'd certainly fix it, but this is a very large top-down organization and it's difficult for him to fix all the parts that are not going well. The same thing happened in my campaign. There were things that I knew were wrong, but I couldn't personally fix all of them. It's frustrating, I know.'
His tone changed again to one of sympathy and genuine concern. With just a hint of pleading in his voice he said to me, 'Stay with me, hang in there and we'll be alright.'
'We have to be, Wes, because in November we have to kick some ass!'
A brilliant 'Southern Man smile' draped his face even with the bands of sweat running from his temples. He pumped my hand one last time and said, 'That's exactly right!'"
Entire post:
http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/5/26/124156/131
[new] (#77) (Rated 5.00/1)
by C4Clark on 05/30/2004 11:27:36 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
G4V, here is the exchange recorded to Ruth Benedict's Blog about her talk with Wes the other night in NYC:
"'Wes. I know you want us to vigorously support John Kerry. That mission in clear; however, the bloggers and people at the grassroots level in the democratic base are finding that mission difficult.'
'But why?' His eyes pierced mine when he asked that question, but I continued.
'Wes, every time the bloggers or others at the grassroots level try to reach out to the Kerry campaign, whether, virtually or physically, we are met with resistance, ignored and in some cases even banned from participating. It has been, at best, a disheartening experience especially when we know you're out here stumping so hard for Kerry.'
Wes' face was cast with a look of gloom after I said this. From his reaction and facial expression, I could tell that it wasn't the first time he was hearing these concerns. He squeezed my hand again and said, 'I know' in his sweet, quiet southern tone.
'There is a rich pool of resources that is going untapped by Kerry's campaign even with our best efforts.'
His hand clenched mine as he spoke again. 'I know. If John knew this was happening, he'd certainly fix it, but this is a very large top-down organization and it's difficult for him to fix all the parts that are not going well. The same thing happened in my campaign. There were things that I knew were wrong, but I couldn't personally fix all of them. It's frustrating, I know.'
His tone changed again to one of sympathy and genuine concern. With just a hint of pleading in his voice he said to me, 'Stay with me, hang in there and we'll be alright.'
'We have to be, Wes, because in November we have to kick some ass!'
A brilliant 'Southern Man smile' draped his face even with the bands of sweat running from his temples. He pumped my hand one last time and said, 'That's exactly right!'"
Entire post:
http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/5/26/124156/131
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)