Village Voice calls for Kerry's replacement on Dem Ticket

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-28 07:29am

Johnboy isn't lefty enough for the tye dye and patchuli crew in the east village. ::snicker::

The Village Voice wrote:Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
John Kerry Must Go

Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-28 08:33am

How exactly is the air gushing out of the Kerry balloon?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-04-28 08:34am

This is rather amusing.

Personally, I've thought for awhile that both parties have a hard time putting the people I see as being more electable on the ticket. Either that or the put someone who on his own merrits is electable but then saddle him with all the bagage that the hard core party faithful want in their canidate.

I think this is why Dole didn't do very well against Clinton and I also think this is why the last election was so close. If he either party would have presented a canidate who really worked for the people in the middle we wouldn't have had all of this virtual tie nonsense.

Anyway, as much as I like to see someone better than Kerry get the Democratic nomination I'll be surprised if it happens. If they have an open convention that might actually be worth watching for a change. The conventions where everything is just a forgone conclusion and everyone is there to congratulate themselves are just a waste of time.

I have to wonder if a different canidate is chosen at the convention would that alienate the people who voted in the Democratic primaries to the extent that enough of them will either vote for some other party or stay home all together?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-04-28 08:36am

Vympel wrote:How exactly is the air gushing out of the Kerry balloon?

Poll numbers keep showing Bush's lead growing.

If the Dems can't beat this[/i] incumbant president they are in pretty sorry shape.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-28 08:38am

Tsyroc wrote:
Vympel wrote:How exactly is the air gushing out of the Kerry balloon?
Poll numbers keep showing Bush's lead growing.

If the Dems can't beat this[/i] incumbant president they are in pretty sorry shape.

Has a war time President ever lost re-election? I think the people are just rallying around the President because you're at war, not because the President is good or competent.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-28 08:40am

Vympel wrote:How exactly is the air gushing out of the Kerry balloon?

he is losing ground in most major polls and is trailing bush by several points now. Many blame his attepts to moderate his stands and his Senate record is being scruinized; it seems that he voted all over the political spectrum to suit his political needs at the time. He has alienated his base by moving to the right a little, not that the right will vote for him because he is percieved as a New England Yankee Liberal TM.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-04-28 08:43am

BoredShirtless wrote: Has a war time President ever lost re-election? I think the people are just rallying around the President because you're at war, not because the President is good or competent.

Certainly not in recent times and none that I can think of in the past either.

Traditionally it's also been difficult to get rid of incumbants although it's happened to Ford, Bush and Carter in the last 30 years. Since Ford was never elected president I'm not sure if that is quite the same but he was the incumbant when he lost.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-04-28 08:47am

he is losing ground in most major polls and is trailing bush by several points now. Many blame his attepts to moderate his stands and his Senate record is being scruinized; it seems that he voted all over the political spectrum to suit his political needs at the time. He has alienated his base by moving to the right a little, not that the right will vote for him because he is percieved as a New England Yankee Liberal TM.

Also his war record despite being supiror in nearly all ways was pretty much wreaked after his little after the war protest were he apperntly decred his war medals as worthless and corrupt and the normal anti-war we never should have been there speech

To defend himself he said he had NOT throw his medals, only his ribbons(The medals were other peoples)

Which ment that instead of jumping up and down on these

He was jumping up and down on these

Plus other people's medals

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-28 08:56am

Mr Bean wrote: <snip>

which in itself wouldn't be too bad. The problem with Kerry is that he is trying to be every thing to everyone. You can't rally the troops at the anti war rally the same day you talk about the noble the armed forces are. You can't be the anti war protester for a goddamn war you voted for and supported when it was fucking convienient and lambasted when it suited you. Bush my be an asshole, but he is at least consistant. Bush knows what he stands for, and people know what he stands for and subsequently what his policy on an issue will be. I don't even think John Kerry knows what John Kerry stands for. Every major issue of the election he tries to play both sides. The war, abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts etc.... if you ask a yes/no question (ie do you support abortion rights) you get a fucking paragraph filled with caveats and fence sitting.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-28 09:00am

Col. Crackpot wrote:You can't rally the troops at the anti war rally the same day you talk about the noble the armed forces are. You can't be the anti war protester for a goddamn war you voted for and supported when it was fucking convienient and lambasted when it suited you. Bush my be an asshole, but he is at least consistant.

The context CHANGED, Crackpot. He probably supported the war because he ate the bullshit offered by the Bush Admin. Now that we all know it was bullshit, not changing his old position would prove him an IDIOT!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-28 09:09am

BoredShirtless wrote: The context CHANGED, Crackpot. He probably supported the war because he ate the bullshit offered by the Bush Admin. Now that we all know it was bullshit, not changing his old position would prove him an IDIOT!

which would be fine if he didn't still do it to this day.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-28 09:28am

What polls are these now? I heard it's still a dead heat.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-28 11:00am

Vympel wrote:What polls are these now? I heard it's still a dead heat.

Check out CNN; whatever polls they host, Bush has the peddle to the metal, he's gone ahead about 10% two days ago.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-28 11:04am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:
Vympel wrote:How exactly is the air gushing out of the Kerry balloon?
Poll numbers keep showing Bush's lead growing.

If the Dems can't beat this[/i] incumbant president they are in pretty sorry shape.

Has a war time President ever lost re-election? I think the people are just rallying around the President because you're at war, not because the President is good or competent.

Actually, not many presidents have faced re-election during wartime. Off the top of my head, they are:

Nixon in 1972, who ran on a platform of "peace with honor" while American troops were leaving Vietnam.

Johnson in 1968, who was legally eligible for reelection but whose popularity was so low thanks to Vietnam that he didn't run.

Johnson in 1964, when the Vietnam War was basically not on anyone's radar yet.

Roosevelt in 1944, at a point where we were winning the war. FDR is always an exceptional case anyway--he could have beaten Jesus in an election.

Lincoln in 1864, who would have lost were it not for Sherman's good timing capturing Atlanta and the Copperheads inserting a "peace at any price" plank in the Democratic platform.

So being a wartime president is not a guarantee of reelection. It depends on the state of the war and the popularity of that war in the first place. Right now, IIRC, Bush's approval rating for his handling of Iraq is down to around 40%. Interestingly enough, I heard on NPR the other day that Bush's re-elect number (that is, the percentage of eligible voters who actually think Bush deserves a second term, and aren't just planning to vote for him because they think Kerry is worse) is down to around 45%. The problem is, the longer this election goes on, the less I see Kerry being able to convince that 55% that the country is better off with him.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-04-28 11:06am

BoredShirtless wrote:Has a war time President ever lost re-election?

Erm... Johnson was forced out of office primarily because of a war. Nixon would have been impeached.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-28 11:31am

Col. Crackpot wrote: which in itself wouldn't be too bad. The problem with Kerry is that he is trying to be every thing to everyone.

I agree, and this is my primary issue with Kerry. He really does try to be an everyman's President, and in doing so his message comes of forced. I do believe that Kerry would do a great job as President if elected, the trouble is that his election platform isn't getting the universal appeal he wants it to.

HOWEVER, Bush's election campaign is FAR scarier. He has decided to abandon the bi-partisan stants that most presidential candidates go for and is catering entirely to the right. This sets a VERY scary precident if he wins because Presidential candidates on both sides will think that they have to be extremely partisan to carry the election and it drives a wedge right through any sort of inevitably needed cooperation between the two parties. Can you imagine if every President was as big a divider as Bush has been? There would be utter chaos and NOTHING would get done in Washington. The only reason Bush has been partially successful in this strategy is because the Republicans have total control over every branch of government at the moment, and this situation cannot last.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-04-28 12:03pm

So just because one editorial and a few hardcore right-wingers say the Dems should pick someone else, Bush is automagically going to win?

It's still very early in the campaign.

I am also tired of all this horseshit we've been hearing about the medals. I liked the quote I heard recently about this that sums up the argument:

Oliver Willis wrote:Senator Kerry, please explain to us what you did with the medals you won for being shot at and for saving lives during your service for our country, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney were avoiding the draft. Senator Kerry, release your military records so we can reveal your excellent performance reviews and compare them to President Bush's middling and missing ones.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-04-28 12:09pm

Natorgator wrote:
I am also tired of all this horseshit we've been hearing about the medals. I liked the quote I heard recently about this that sums up the argument:
Oliver Willis wrote:Senator Kerry, please explain to us what you did with the medals you won for being shot at and for saving lives during your service for our country, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney were avoiding the draft. Senator Kerry, release your military records so we can reveal your excellent performance reviews and compare them to President Bush's middling and missing ones.

The issue wouldn't stick if Kerry hadn't used his status of 'warhero' as a qualification for his presiential bid. Kerry brought it on himself for making sure EVERYONE knew his was in the service in Vietnaum. He brought it up and now everyone is taking a look at it.

Not saying the right wouldn't give it a try if Kerry didn't bring it up, just that it wouldn't have stuck so much if the Republicans brought it out of nowhere.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-04-28 12:13pm

Knife wrote: The issue wouldn't stick if Kerry hadn't used his status of 'warhero' as a qualification for his presiential bid. Kerry brought it on himself for making sure EVERYONE knew his was in the service in Vietnaum. He brought it up and now everyone is taking a look at it.

He IS a warhero. All his records indicated that his performance was nothing short of exemplary. Who cares about his goddamn medals? It's nothing more than a red herring.

Not saying the right wouldn't give it a try if Kerry didn't bring it up, just that it wouldn't have stuck so much if the Republicans brought it out of nowhere.

They brought it up because they looked like idiots once his records came out and it made Bush look really bad. So now they're trying to smear him in the most petty way possible.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-28 12:14pm

Did you just call the Village Voice a voice of the right wing? Omg, thanks I needed a laugh.

All bow down to the conservative views found in the Village Voice. They're right next to the ads for lesbian underage marriage.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-04-28 12:23pm

Natorgator wrote: He IS a warhero. All his records indicated that his performance was nothing short of exemplary. Who cares about his goddamn medals? It's nothing more than a red herring.

Unruffle your feathers, killer, I did not insinuate anything. Kerry brought up him service as a point in his election bid. Of course the opposition will take a nice close look at it. Tis all I said.

On the medals? I care. I DON'T care if they were ribbons or medal, but I do care that in a little childish snit, he threw them out in a public display. Fuck him on his little protest.

They brought it up because they looked like idiots once his records came out and it made Bush look really bad. So now they're trying to smear him in the most petty way possible.

While most of it does appear to me political attacks with little truth behind it, there still are some questions, like the medals (specifically him tossing them away) and his fitreps (that tie specifically into his 'almight war hero' status) that ask questions.

Again, I reiterate, if he hadn't gone through extrodinary lengths to make sure that EVERYONE knew he was a war hero in the 70's and made it some sort of qualification on how that made him better than Bushy, most of this wouldn't be happening or it might be happening but it would be a very minor issue as being seen as a blatent political attack.

He brought the subject up, now he has to deal with the negitive alongside the positive of it.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-28 12:32pm

Natorgator, did you just call the editorial staff at the Vlliage Voice right wing nuts?

They want Kerry rmoved because he is too CONSERVATIVE for them.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-04-28 12:51pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Natorgator, did you just call the editorial staff at the Vlliage Voice right wing nuts? They want Kerry rmoved because he is too CONSERVATIVE for them.

Ideological sunglasses makes it hard to see either right or left of where your standing. Probably why there are so many crash and burns in the streets of politics.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-04-28 01:41pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:Did you just call the Village Voice a voice of the right wing? Omg, thanks I needed a laugh.

I never said it was right wing. I said one editorial AND the right wing pundits, cause they're rolling around like pigs in shit because of that editiorial (saw it on the Boortz website, etc.)

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-04-28 01:50pm

Knife wrote:
Natorgator wrote: He IS a warhero. All his records indicated that his performance was nothing short of exemplary. Who cares about his goddamn medals? It's nothing more than a red herring.
Unruffle your feathers, killer, I did not insinuate anything. Kerry brought up him service as a point in his election bid. Of course the opposition will take a nice close look at it. Tis all I said.

My annoyance was not directed at you, I was expressing my displeasure with the constant media coverage of what to me is a very minute and downright silly issue.

On the medals? I care. I DON'T care if they were ribbons or medal, but I do care that in a little childish snit, he threw them out in a public display. Fuck him on his little protest.

I don't really care either way, but that's just me.

While most of it does appear to me political attacks with little truth behind it, there still are some questions, like the medals (specifically him tossing them away) and his fitreps (that tie specifically into his 'almight war hero' status) that ask questions.

What fitreps are you referring to?

Again, I reiterate, if he hadn't gone through extrodinary lengths to make sure that EVERYONE knew he was a war hero in the 70's and made it some sort of qualification on how that made him better than Bushy, most of this wouldn't be happening or it might be happening but it would be a very minor issue as being seen as a blatent political attack.

He brought the subject up, now he has to deal with the negitive alongside the positive of it.

I will agree that he didn't need to make a big deal about it and let it speak for itself, but in any case I am a lot more comfortable with someone who has wartime experience leading the country rather than someone who dodged going. IMO, Bush has taken war much too lightly (since lots of evidence has come out suggesting that he wanted the invasion of Iraq from the beginning) and that is probably a reflection of his experience or lack thereof.

But anyway, I hate politics. They don't ever talk about what's important (read: the issues). Just lies, attacks and smears.