President Kerry would have been bashed too

[sandnsea]

This probably isn't worthy of a whole thread. I'm sure by now, President Kerry would have said or done something that wasn't in line with the far left. The same people who are bashing him now, would have been bashing President Kerry too. He wouldn't have pulled out from Iraq, so he would have been bashed. He wouldn't have passed a gay marriage law by now, so he would have been bashed. He would have been pressuring Iran on nuclear weapons, so he would have been bashed. I suspect these people would be bashing anybody, even Noam
Chomsky or Gore Vidal.

[politicasista]

1. True.

Didn't think about that before the last post.

[TayTay]

2. Yeah, but so what

He would President. He's not that thin-skinned. He understands, unlike the current occupant of the White House, that in a democracy dissent is healthy. A President Kerry would have tried to hold forums to listen to the people and listen to that dissent. (He was, after all, a protestor of government policy at one point.)

I think the esteemed Senator is quite quick enough on his feet to deal with a difference of opinion. If he isn't, well then I have to find a new candidate. AGain, have some faith. Good people can handle difficult situations. That's what makes them good people.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. I don't think that was her point

The point was, these people are chronic malcontents who would find something to bash regardless of the circumstances, and that we should thus ignore and marginalize them, because no matter what happens, it won't be good enough for them. No one doubts that Kerry can handle it, that isn't the point.

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, so what

Exactly. He may listen to malcontents when he has to, but he sure doesn't let them bother him or direct his views.

[ginnyinWI]

3. I see your point

Some lefties just want to be against. It doesn't matter who, they just want or need to be mad at someone, preferably someone they perceive as having a lot of power. I honestly don't know why they don't save it for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld. Why they have to try to tear apart the Dems doesn't make sense. Except that they love to rip on people, especially people that other Dems like. They must really get off on being the naysayers. If that's their only joy in life, more's the pity.

There is really no way to change them. Like you say, if he had won the presidency, it still wouldn't be good enough. Nothing and nobody will ever be good enough for those who love to find fault more than finding things to admire.

[JI7]

4. i think there is a different standard when it comes to Kerry

i agree with most of what you say. but i do think there is a different standard when it comes to Kerry for some. and they bash him for doing or saying the same things others do but they only bash Kerry for it.

[karynnj]

5. Anger for not winning

I think that once the primaries started there was a growing sense that we could win - which had not been there even 6 months before then. When the primaries really started, the Democrats did get a lot of media attention. There was a race to cover and it was covered. The news from Iraq was bad and issues like Abu Grabeh appeared. For a few months, various Democrats (especially Kerry) outpolled Bush. (Most of these polls were based on the population as a whole, rather than likely voter. This time period really raised expectations.

What they seem to ignore is that once the nomination was sure, Kerry was given almost none of the normal "puff" coverage that was typical in every election I can remember. Kerry has lived one of the most interesting, inspiring lives I can think of for a politician. (as has Teresa) Then the coverage for the convention was cut to about 1/3 of that of 2000, when it was cut from previous years. Then the media essentially protected Bush from any Democratic accusations (even when true) and pushed every Republican smear.

Even then, if the coverage of Kerry's rallies were even half as complete as the coverage they gave Clinton, he might have won.

But as these people don't see that the early primary coverage was somewhat normal, while the general election was on a really not level playing field - so they remember their candidate could have won and Kerry didn't. (The fact was only the debates were fair - and no one could have outdone what Kerry did.)

[JI7]

7. partly, but this goes back before the Primary also

i'm not sure if you were on DU during the primary campaign but it was always very anti Kerry on here.

that's one of the reasons i don't deal with the bashers much anymore. because it's something that has always gone on.

[karynnj]

11. As you guessed I wasn't here - my apologies

I have no idea in that case. Edwards voted for all the things they hit Kerry for.

[JI7]

12. no need for apology

Edwards didn't have much support on DU either but he also didn't get as much negativity as Kerry did.

[sandnsea]

9. Yes

Which is why they would have continued to bash him, even as President. Sour grapes go a very long way. If so and so were President, we'd have this and that and bla bla bla....

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. They want it their way

100% 0f the time, they are just as bad as the the far right, never happy with 95% always want it their way or no way. WHINERS :cry:

[LittleClarkie]

13. One person almost said something nice yesterday though

Almost, mind you. Not quite. But for that person in particular, it was something. He was the Iraq stance away from being nice. I was almost impressed. Almost, mind you. Not quite.