Why did the Dems choose Kerry?

The more I learn about Kerry, the more I wonder why the Dems elected him to run against Bush. Here are some points I find difficult to understand:

  1. When you’re up against a rich guy like Bush who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth why choose a billionaire like Kerry (especially as he didn’t earn the money himself)?
  2. Why choose a Senator? Rather than a Washington insider, wouldn’t it be better to pick a popular Democrat Governor?
  3. Kerry’s war record is a minefield, and his anti-war activities make him virtually unelectable. Why take the risk of this blowing up?
  4. I’ve read that he has a very liberal voting record. Wouldn’t it be better to have a candidate with a more mainstream record.?
  5. Kerry is from the North-east. This isn’t an important battlefield, is it?

almas john [quote]The more I learn about Kerry, the more I wonder why the Dems elected him to run against Bush. Here are some points I find difficult to understand[/quote]:

You bring up some very valid points. The truth is that if Dean had not have been crucified in the media for his “YEAH” comment, it is quite likely he would have gotten the nomination instead of Kerry. Pehaps he would have actually been the better choice but that is water under the bridge now since it didn’t happen. Although Kerry, like all career politicians, brings along some baggage which may make him less than popular with the general public, we must keep in mind that Clinton got into office twice despite having a hell of a lot more negatives against him than Kerry has. Thus, Clinton’s win over Bush sr. made the Republicans stand up and take notice. After all that was thrown at Clinton and he still got elected, the Elephants are aware that they are indeed vulnerable and could lose. (Let’s face it, Bush ain’t exactly the most well-loved person around especially with the mess in Iraq).

I think this is a wash. After all, both are rich guys so neither side gains an advantage nor does either side suffer a loss.

Dean got killed in the press so that explains the reason.

Completely wrong. Much was made about Clinton not going to Vietnam, and some accused him of even burning the flag overseas but it didn’t matter in the end. He still won.

Since many people expect a Democrat to be a liberal, no harm done there against Kerry.

It’s not but then again, Arkansas wasn’t either and Clinton was not hurt by that fact at all.

dean would have been an even weaker candidate. there is no way you can win the 2004 presidential election as an outspoken anti-war candidate.

Because he was the most likely to win out of all the democratic contenders that went anti-war. Money or how he got it was irrelevent. Hence why the liberal media made damn sure that Dean didn’t make it.

Name one popular democratic governor. Dean’s popularity was taking a strong popular stand and having zealots spread the word. It had similiarities to a cult at times.

They tried to preempt it and were almost successful. Kerry brought out Vietnam as a key reason to elect him. We can now all see that this was a poor idea. If he had kept it quiet and in the “closet” do you think swiftvets and stolen valor would of gotten any publicity? I believe the press would of silenced anything controversial. A NYT or WP editor was actually complaining that he couldn’t kill the swiftvets story.

Kerry benefits and is hindered by his voting record. He doesn’t have a significant piece of legislation to his name despite being a senator for 20 years. He can say on one end that he’s a moderate(no legislation to say otherwise), while on other hand say he’s a liberal(by his voting record). Also the way the primaries are set up, you have two small unimportant states(NH is liberal?) deciding the democratic presidential candidate. Where most republicans have to be vetted by SC to make it.

Not at all, similiar to a preacher preaching to the choir. The problem being that governorshipps are increasingly being dominated by republicans and democrats have minorities in both houses. They had few choices for democrats that could make it a competetive race due to lack of name recognition.

There best chance at winning was probably Joe Liebermen. He was the only guy who didn’t go anti-war to parrot Dean. He was also the only guy at the DNC to thank the soldiers. He was more middle of the road, strong on defense, and could probably have this election in hand by now if he were nominated. The problem being that 90% of the delegates were anti-war. This is not Zell Miller’s(D-GA) type of crowd.

Dean was the worst choice. A lot of democrats knew his record and went to some lengths to make sure he didn’t get the nomination. Him screaming and imploding only helped matters. Clintons didn’t send their guys to Dean, they sent them to Kerry. Kerry was also helped by a compliant press that didn’t vet him. Remember the story about him mortgaging his house to run as president? His wife’s a billionaire and has joint ownership of the house and he gets a convenient mortgage and good press about it. That’s just bullshit.

CYA
Okami

To most of the Dems, the only concern is getting rid of Bush.

They simply thought (mistakenly it appears) that the entire country agreed with thier irrational hatred. It didn’t matter that much who they nominated, so long as the issue was confined to “Bush Sucks”. Looks like the Dems are “out of touch” with mainstream US again.

Now, it looks more and more as though they are going to pay for not nominating someone who could run on his/her own record rather than simply attacking Bush’s record.

Kerry doesn’t have any plan. The Dems didn’t think they needed a plan, thus, they didn’t spend much time planning.

Kerry is a horrible candidate.

It’s the nomination process. It doesn’t matter so much who would make the best candidate, strategically speaking, in the elections, as who is best able to best his opponents in the primaries / caucuses.

I personally think Wesley Clarke–and for the Republicans for years ago, John McCain–would have been stronger candidates for the vast middle ground of American voters. But that’s not what primaries and caucuses measure. They reward candidates who are liked by the party leadership and by selected special interest groups, who look good on TV, and who can avoid doing anything profoundly stupid before they’re nominated.

Thanks for the replies guys. Yeah, I guess the nomination process limits who can get through. And the need to have massive amounts of money would also greatly limit who can run in the primaries.

I would have thought that with 50 states there would be a very large pool of possible candidates who have been successful at that level of government.

After a week plus in the US gauging the situation first hand my opinion is this election comes down to Anybody But Bush versus My Country Right Or Wrong.

If there’s a rational middle ground anywhere I didn’t see any evidence of it – unless you count apathy as a middle ground.

There’s plenty of hate to go around too. Democrats hate Bush. Republicans hate Kerry. No middle ground there.

Neither Bush nor Kerry have a plan for Iraq. If anyone knows differently I’d be very interested to hear the details.

Actually Bush does have a plan of sorts but it’s a ‘secret.’ If he wins re-election he’s going to unleash the dogs of war on the insurgent strongholds in Iraq to try to eradicate them and usher in the era of Pox Americana in one fell blow. There’ll be plenty of civilian casualties but they’ll be the right kind so that’s not a problem.

This strategy is based on the by now repeatedly discredited central delusion of neoMcCarthyism that there are only a few thousand freedom-hating ‘dead-enders’ scattered throughout the Middle East who are causing all the trouble and once they’re mopped up the remaining millions of Muslims will just fall into line and do what they’re told once and for all.

Zell Miller will then be rewarded for his patriotism and political courage by being installed as the Imperial Wizard of the Grand Order of White Makes Right, Middle East Chapter, and peace and harmony will descend on that perennially troubled region like the plot of a revisionist Eddie Murphy movie.

In the unlikely event that none of this comes to pass though, there’s always the fallback position that the reason why neither Kerry or Bush have a plan for turning Iraq into a showcase for bait-and-switch nation building is because it’s like asking the crew of the Titanic to come up with a plan B for reaching New York on schedule after the ship has already hit the iceberg.

Instinctively knowing their limitations, the principals are instead fighting tooth and nail over something they really have control over – which is how best to rearrange the ‘ancient military records’ deck chairs on a tilting deck.

Exitus Acta Probat!

  1. Kerry isn’t liked by Washington insiders, including Democrats.
  2. He doesn’t look good on TV, and gets lukewarm response at best. He looks bored.
  3. He’s already said plenty of stupid stuff already. He numbers go down when he opens his mouth.

This is such a meltdown. Of course, the Dems blame it all on “dirty tricks” and “mud slinging” by the Pubes. But in reality, Kerry & Campaign is committing suicide. Bush has received some of the most instensely negative press in political history. Why has it not mattered in the polls?Because for the most part, Bush isn’t responding to all this stuff. However, Kerry is out there whining and complaining like a kid that had a toy taken in the sandbox. Kerry is stuck in the past. Bush is talking about the future.

Watching the implosion is almost better than … well, I almost said “sex”, but …

I agree with Okami that the best choice for the Dems would have been Joe Liebermen. Seems a very decent chap. Or would having a Jewish president be seen as being insensitive (or at least bad timing) for the Middle East?

I like Joe Lieberman tremendously. But, yes, I think it would be difficult for him to deal with the middle east… fuck, its difficult for anyone to deal with the middle east.

[quote=“pinesay”]

This is such a meltdown. Of course, the Dems blame it all on “dirty tricks” and “mud slinging” by the Pubes. …[/quote]

:astonished: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :bravo:

I can’t believe you wrote that, pinesay! That’s hilarious!

As for me, i’m apathetic nowadays. Noticed?
I worked a bit on Kerry campaign, but I came to the conclusion that it’s not going matter if he wins or not in the long run. We’ll need to support whatever president we have in office since times are pretty tough nowadays.

Kerry’s plans are as weak as Bush’s, but we have to remember that the war wheels were spinning all during the Clinton administration and before. Whatever is going on now, was in the works a long time ago. And it’s not going to go away no matter who we elect into office. We have to learn to live with it for a while, i suppose. Or just detonate the entire region before Israel does.

But i say, just don’t hide away in Taiwan if you support those ideals, when you should be fighting for democracy in the middle east too, fellers. Why always leave it to the others while you’re sitting pretty in some ridiculous Taiwanese buxiban, or in some cozy little cubicle? Sorry ass whiners.

However, that said, i still agree more with Kerry’s domestic policies, so of course i will still vote for him over Bush. Especially due to the amendment issue banning the possibility of same sex marriage.

Bush also embarrasses me to tears, but i doubt that Kerry will be less of an embarrassment, i mean, Clinton was a big embarrassment too, so who gives a shit anymore? They’re all a bunch of cunts. I hope someday we can have a person in office who’ll make us proud, but i don’t hold any hope for that. So Kerry as a candidate is just as awful as Bush, since McCain would have been the far better choice for the PUBES, as pinesay calls them!

But i must say that i have seen a helluva lot of Kerry bumperstickers in the great state of North Carolina, oddly enough. Many more than Bush Cheney. Like every ten Kerry/Edwards, i see 1 Bush, so there you go. I imagine that even if this state doesn’t swing Blue, that it might be a closer election than in the past. Many people have lost their jobs in this state, and they blame Bush.

They also ask if they’re better off four years ago than today, and we only need to look at the acceptance speeches delivered by Gore and Bush in the 2000 nat’l conventions to see that we definately were.

Alien But [quote]I say, just don’t hide away in Taiwan if you support those ideals, when you should be fighting for democracy in the middle east too, fellers. Why always leave it to the others while you’re sitting pretty in some ridiculous Taiwanese buxiban, or in some cozy little cubicle? Sorry ass whiners.[/quote] ,
I hear what you are saying. If there were more foreigners in the Middle East striking up personal friendships with the local people, they would look less harshly upon the West.
Military action is expensive. Maybe “soft power” is more cost effective. Things like Peace Corps generate a postive image of the West for a low cost.
However, this is all rather academic. The dirty fuckers don’t drink alcohol so I say NUKE 'em. :laughing:

Which means they are going to loose even more jobs. If they can’t be honest about why they lost their jobs, then its going to take longer to replace the jobs. Most serioius economists agree that we are doing AMAZINGLY well in the aftermath of 911. 911 should have caused a serious recession. Overall, our economy remains a shining star in the world economy.

I don’t credit Bush for this really, as I understand economics a bit better than that. What makes America great are the majority of people that don’t look at their sucess or failure as the fault of someone else.

Just for you sweeheart. :heart:

Alien,
You sound so reasonable these days. You know what? I started getting into American politics largely as a result of your (and Mother T’s) anti-Bush posts and avatars. I wanted to find the reason/source of the intense hatred.

Pinesay put me on to Rush’s radio program. Wow, what a revelation!! While biased, it doesn’t pretend to be be non-partisan and it covers a lot of things that are ignored by the mainstream media. I also tune into Air America to get different opinions.

Bush seems like a bit of a moron but he also seems genuine, friendly, and decent. Of course, this is not reason enough to be elected, but I don’t think he deserves to get called Hitler, a Chimp, and a fucking idiot (but I’ll settle for “a bit of an idiot”).

I should not pretend to be a neutral onlooker: I’m a conservative but at the same time also a radical atheist environmentalist. Basically, I’m disappointed by the poor choices on offer. However, I DESPISE BEYOND WORDS Kerry for what he said about is fellow soldiers in Vietnam after he got back to the States so I - if I were a Meiguoren - would reluctantly cast a vote for Bush. I don’t really care if Kerry lied about his own service in Nam but to brand decent soldiers as baby killers is beyond the pale. Unvoteable!!! Which goes back to my original question - why choose him?

Remember folks,
Mother T and Tigerman are political foes but they are also friends who respect one another (when they are drinking, that is :slight_smile: ). Don’t hate people, and drink!
:slight_smile: Peace (or I’ll give you you a kicking).

Note to mods: this excerpt is about one-eighth of the original article. Quoted under “fair use”, and because Yahoo will vaporize the article in about 12 days.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … otersslips

Kerry’s Once Sizable Lead With Female Voters Slips

Sun Sep 19, 7:55 AM ET

By Matea Gold Times Staff Writer

BOSTON

Which means they are going to loose even more jobs. If they can’t be honest about why they lost their jobs, then its going to take longer to replace the jobs. Most serioius economists agree that we are doing AMAZINGLY well in the aftermath of 911. 911 should have caused a serious recession. Overall, our economy remains a shining star in the world economy…[/quote]

You do understand that i’m talking about mainly textile mill employees and farmers, don’t you? This area had once Cone Mills, Dan River, and when they started opening plants overseas (China, Mexico, Indonesia) for cheaper labour costs, those who worked in those industries were shit out of luck. They don’t have the skills or education to take on better jobs than what they had, so they’re kind of screwed.

I think what the US needs to look into more and more is boosting education since all the labour jobs are going overseas (for now). How do you get mom off food stamps when she doesn’t even know (or have the inclination) to work a job that pays well enough to support her three children with different fathers? What happens when those three diff fathers get laid off their mill jobs? Why don’t people want to pay more taxes if it’s going into education? Why buy two packs of cigarettes per day for $7.00 when you could be putting that $200 plus dollars a month into a child’s education? Because they’re ignorant. We breed a country of ignorant people and this will catch up with us, and it already has, in many respects.

Why aren’t these corporate conglomerates FORCED (especially the ones who downsize and leave swaths of semi-illiterates behind without jobs) to offer more on job training that can help develop their workers to be skilled in other capacities when they end up ditching them for the cost effective Mexican? American needs to build up its foundations again, but it won’t happen during greedy administrations who’re so controlled by big businesses and lobbyists. There is major reform necessary, and i don’t see it happening any time soon, sadly, as there’s that pesky war. You know, the one that’s killing the sons and daughters of the unemployed mill workers? I drove through a little cracker box lower mid class white/black neighbourhod behind my friend’s office other day and almost every mailbox had a yellow ribbon. What does that tell you?

And there’s this: the Mexicans are smart as hell. They work hard, live together in groups (like Chinese) and they save their money to get a leg up. They dont feel they’re owed anything either, which makes for good employees. Perhaps they’re being swindled by greedy buggers, but same time, thy’re advancing, while others are backsliding. I’m rather glad they keep to themselves, however, and are hard working, because you’d see a lot more racial strife with them here in this part of country due to the dumb redneck mentality, if they were more brazen. They’re very shy and reserved almost all the Mexicans. And there are a lot of them. And they’re doing jobs that even the unemployed uneducated mill worker won’t do. Pulling tobacco, building strip malls and other construction jobs, domestics, retail. They are really contributing to the US to keep its economy alive, mind you.

And Pinesay, it’s all in the spin, dear. The US has never known such a deficit. The economy is basically in shambles and we are in a recession, no matter what you say. The market it sluggish, people don’t have money for luxuries, the gaps are widening between rich and poor, and if you read what i wrote above, that is the reason. Now take a chill pill and come back here and find out what’s happening in YOUR state, because no matter who we have as president, it’s going to matter more on a local level what happens next.

To the American registered voters overseas, i hope you know all about what’s going on locally in your states, counties, and towns. This is the majority of the ballot. The Presidential choice is only ONE check box.

Alien wrote: [quote]I think what the US needs to look into more and more is boosting education since all the labour jobs are going overseas (for now).[/quote]
I wonder how much the American economy depends on foreign brainpower? Is importing talent cheaper than educating the lower end of your population?

[quote=“almas john”]Alien,
However, I DESPISE BEYOND WORDS Kerry for what he said about is fellow soldiers in Vietnam after he got back to the States so I - if I were a Meiguoren - would reluctantly cast a vote for Bush. I don’t really care if Kerry lied about his own service in Nam but to brand decent soldiers as baby killers is beyond the pale. Unvoteable!!![/quote]

did he actually brand all those serving in vietnam ‘baby killers’ or did he just recount the testimony he had heard from from a few servicemen and indeed lable it this way? I’m just wandering which ‘decent soldiers’ he personaly branded as ‘baby killers’.