Confusion

[ProSense]

It appears to me that Kerry is the only one out there who knows what the Eff is
going on. You have Bayh spewing Republican lite crap, Warner up in NH afraid to mention the war, Rendell in VA lecturing Kerry on Democratic ideals (LMAO), the MSM pushing Hillary and trashing Kerry, all while he is the only one on Bush's a** every day since Bush was appointed president in 2000.

Pa. governor speaks to Virginia Democrats at annual dinner
By the Associated Press
February 11, 2006

RICHMOND, Va. -- Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell implored Virginia Democrats to get back to the progressive initiatives that made the party great and quit running campaigns as though they were imitation Republicans.

Rendell spoke to about 1,000 Democratic activists at the party's annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner Saturday in Richmond.

Rendell said John Kerry should have remained truer to Democratic ideals when he opposed Republican George W. Bush two years ago.

"He was scared to talk about the things that were important to people and that are important to us as Democrats," Rendell told a cheering crowd. "If we're going to lose, let's lose for something we believe in. Politics is at its best when you talk about it with passion."

more...

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--democrats0211feb11,0,5632813.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

He should filibuster, no he shouldn't; don't push, no push; forget spying, don't forget spying; be the opposition, no be issues oriented, um...

Geez!

These people are unreal! I'm so glad Kerry knows who he is and is being himself.

[Mass]

1. Yes, I guess we have another proof that the DLC likes Kerry

:sarcasm:

He is so wrong, and he has been one of those Democrats criticizing Kerry throughout the campaign as well, including for selecting Edwards.

[ProSense]

4. Here Rendell is

trying to appear more liberal than Kerry because he's being challenged by Lynn Swann, who is a big friggin jerk off. If this is Rendell's position, what does that say about the others trying to appeal to the center?


I may just add Kerry's statement to my signature:

"the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party."

[FreedomAngel82]

18. Good quote

We should use that quote every time someone says Kerry is a DLCer.

[wisteria]

5. Exactly, Rendell is DLC 'er and apparently they didn't pay attention

or help out at all during Kerry's campaign.This smacks of another DLC attempt to discredit him. I feel like yelling and screaming at Rendell for the remark about Kerry not staying true to our ideals. This is all Kerry talked about and still talks about. Rendell is my Governor and I remember him from Phila. as mayor, I have been disappointed in him recently. I really don't think he stands for anything at all. I can't even figure out who he is trying to help with his statements.
So what, now our party is going to be all about ideals right after Kerry leads a filibuster based on our very basic ideals?
Rendell needs to shut up and concentrate on his own campaign here in PA. Gosh, now I am really pissed off. I remember a ways back, he made another negative comment about Kerry. He likes Vilicack (SP) that I know for a fact.

[ray of light]

12. Wisteria, then CALL his office daily! Make some noice!

Talk to the press office and get his ideas in black and white and promote them. Get the name of the person and if he doesn't stick with what he says, then call back and call 'em on it.

YOU can be HIS friend or oppositional party. AND when he tells Kerry one thing but does another YOU pull out your notepad with names, dates, and comments and nail him to the wall.

Then you go take yourself out there and form a group to either get him out of office or to make him responsive to your needs. Start a blog. Do anything you want to do.

You have learned so much being here in the kf that I'm sure you could hog tie this hog with your hands behind your back.

Go for it.

(and give us the updates too.)

(no sarcasm intended at all! just a rally for you)

P.S. everyone, I'm reading all the posts here, but not commenting too much. I have been sort of swamped helping nolie out and also doing my regular stuff too. (Thanks everyone who has been helping too!)

[karynnj]

2. Is there something going on in PA with this?

Other than Kennedy, I can think of no one who has been as consistently speaking of Democratic issues - the Seattle peech last year wheer he said no one needs a second Republican party and spoke about Democratic values was brilliant.

That this was in Warner's state - and he is far more "Republican" is weird. Is Rendell backing Casey or is that part of the problem?

[wisteria]

7. He not only is backing Casey, he coaxed him into running and

has played a part in discouraging others from running against Casey. Rendell is definitely DLC and I know he mentioned something negative about Kerry at a public gathering a while back which Vilchack (sp) was one of the key speakers. Rendell at that time suggest that Vilichack (sp) should run because he was down to earth and could more easily connect with people.

[TayTay]

3. Again, Kerry did extremely well in the core Dem groups in '04.

John Kerry had 6 million more votes in '04 than Al gore had in '00. 6 million more. Perhaps Gov. Rendell should be concerned with his own re-election bid in PA, where he is in some trouble and has yet to break 50% in the polls and may lose to an appealing Repub like Lynn Swann. He should also consult some actual data and see that Sen. Kerry just killed with the electorate on core Democratic values. (Health care, the economy, jobs, the environment, etc.)

Based on the suspect 'exit polling' of '04, the groups that didn't go heavily Dem that usually do were white single urban women and Catholics. It's hard to see what Rendell's appeal can do to increase the numbers from that group. (Democratic core constituency groups of the poor, minorities and urban liberals held together very, very well.)

[Island Blue]

6. Whaaaaaaa?

Rendell said John Kerry should have remained truer to Democratic ideals when he opposed Republican George W. Bush two years ago.

"He was scared to talk about the things that were important to people and that are important to us as Democrats," Rendell told a cheering crowd. "If we're going to lose, let's lose for something we believe in. Politics is at its best when you talk about it with passion."

What the fuck is he talking about? Were was he during 2004? You know why the Democrats loose Mr. Rendell? People like you are why we loose. People who are willing to eat their own (in public, no less) to further their own political agendas.

That is one reason I am proud to support John Kerry. Instead of tearing his fellow Democrats down, he travels around the country, speaking and raising money in an effort to lift them up! How's that for remaining true to "Democratic ideals"?

[BlueIris]

21. I had the same WTF reaction. Doesn't Rendell understand how TIRED

his "call Kerry a coward" shtick is? TIRED. WEAK. COME UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL IF YOU'RE GOING TO INSULT HIM. Amoebas.

[Mass]

8. I seem to remember that during the campaign, Rendell was one of those

who thought that Kerry should ignore the war and security issues totally and focus only on bread-and-butter issues. It may be what he is referring too, that Democrats should only focus on these issues. In which case he is definitively wrong. I agree with Bayh and Hillary that no democrat will win without national security credentials (though I disagree that this means beating the neo-cons at their game).

[ProSense]

9. This whole issues

versus opposition is such BS, and that's trap the MSM and the Republicans set. Every time a Democrat has to comment on plan versus attack, it plays into the Republican hands. Think about it: They have no plan on most issues and the ones they put forth on other issues suck royally.


Democratic plans and strategies and ideas and suggestions have been posted everywhere (and stolen by Bush), but the MSM and the GOP constantly criticize the Democrats for having no plan except for opposing Bush and the Republicans (which is false), but look who echos that:

And Mr. Bayh said, "I don't believe we will win by just not being them."

Now look at the difference:

And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."

But when the Republicans do what Democrats are constantly being criticized for, they call it strategy:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman outlined a political strategy Friday for the 2006 mid-term elections to portray Democrats as too weak to protect the country and bypass the mainstream news media to spread the Republican message.

Yeah, they spent the entire filibuster period criticizing Kerry for this strategy (which was brilliant and began when he started making the rounds on radio shows) only to steal it now.

[TayTay]

10. The Rethugs have no choice.

They cannot run on their old reliable of 'not being Dems' because they are, undeniably, the party in power and in charge and the current situation is the result of their actions. They cannot run on 'the war' because the war is unpopular and the revelations about it are all bad.

The Rethugs have to run a 'the other guys are worse' strategy. They have no choice at all on this. They hold all the cards and all the power currently. Their own hand to play is to state that the other guys can't be trusted. But they have played this card 3 times now and it is getting old. I don't think it is going to work this time out. I really don't.

[ProSense]

11. Yes, and it also will not work

because Melhman is just spewing crap. The GOP bypassing the media? What that means is the media, like the GOP, has been found out and called out, and Melhman is desperately trying to appear to have thought this through. I loved Kerry's megaphone statement.

[JI7]

13. then why criticize Edwards as vp pick ?

since his biggest issues were more domestic type stuff rather than national security.

and i paid attention to the campaign and Kerry talked about ALL issues. why does it have to be one or the other ? the Republicans talk about all issues. why couldn't they just get behind what he said rather than be constant complainers and whiners about the campaign.

i imagine Rendell may be one of those who thinks we should just agree with Republicans on the national security issues. and talk about the others.

we won Pennsylvania thanks to Teresa, and NO thanks to Rendell. good thing he doesn't have much of a chance at getting the nomination which is hwy he will probably push Hillary.

[globalvillage]

14. I AM PISSED.

I will not vote for him. I would vote for Lynn Swan before I would vote for this bastard. This is one of those letters that you set aside and re-read the next day (as John McCain should have done with the letter to Obama), but if it still sounds the same tomorrow, I will send it.

Rendell said John Kerry should have remained truer to Democratic ideals when he opposed Republican George W. Bush two years ago.

"He was scared to talk about the things that were important to people and that are important to us as Democrats," Rendell told a cheering crowd. "If we're going to lose, let's lose for something we believe in. Politics is at its best when you talk about it with passion."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--democrats0211feb11,0,5632813.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

Governor Rendell, not only are your words blatantly untrue, they're shameful.

What a horrible thing to say. Where were you in 2004? Senator Kerry spoke every day of the campaign about Democratic values, about being "Stronger at Home and Respected in the World". Or have you conveniently forgotten?
If you like, I will send you copies of campaign speeches and transcripts from the debates, since you were obviously not paying attention.

I can send you a copy of a 296 page book called "Our Plan for America". Did you read it? I will list the chapters for you.

Chapter 1 Security
A Strong, Respected America
An Energy Independent America
Chapter 2 Opportunity
Building a Strong Economy
Chapter 3 Family
A World Class Education for All
Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Last I checked, those were Democratic values.

You have lost my respect, and you have lost my vote. I will stay home before I consider supporting you, and what's more, I will urge my friends and family to do the same. If I could bring myself to vote for your opponent, I would.

To me, a Democrat who tears down another Democrat for no other reason than to advance his own agenda is not one I care to support. You should have been supporting Senator Kerry's campaign, and you did not. You are the one who does not support Democratic ideals. And you are the one who will not get my vote.

I would like to wish you good luck in your campaign, but I can not. Believe me when I tell you how very painful it is for me to say this.

Democratic ideals? Today I question yours.

Most sincerely,

[TayTay]

15. Hey GV, you're beautiful when you're angry.

You go woman. I love the letter.

Dems like Rendell are trying to play both sides. They want to defeat the Rethugs by agreeing with them. They buy into the 'Kerry is an elitist who couldn't connect' meme the Thugs put out. But, isn't Sen.Kerry funding candidates in PA?

Funny, they take his money, then chide him for positions he didn't take. Hmmmm, there is a word for someone who takes your money and then screws you over, isn't there?

[globalvillage]

16. I hope he's at the Casey meeting tomorrow.

I swear, I'll rip him a new one. And that WON'T be pretty.

[sandnsea]

19. If you do

Kick his ass for all of us. I always liked Rendell, even though he certainly isn't a perfect Dem, but this statement doesn't even make any sense. John Kerry represents all of the best of the Democratic Party, civil rights, economic fairness, health & well-being, national security and international cooperation. He's the only one who consistently stands up for Dem values. I am really disappointed in Rendell, although I do hope you go ahead and vote for him anyway. :)

[ProSense]

17. That's awesome!

He will certainly know how divisive and counterproductive such opportunistic statements are. I wish all the Democrats who choose this path would get a letter like this. Excellent GV.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. Awesome letter

BTW stick to your guns and don't vote for the SOB. We need to teach these assholes that they can't piss on their betters and get away with it.

[Inuca]

22. Yes....

...great letter, worth sending even the day after. But in spite of everything DO VOTE FOR HIM, especially if there is the slightest chance that he may lose. ANY dem, even a Ben Nelson (who IMHO is worse than Lieberman) is still better than having a republican in his/her place.

[globalvillage]

28. I will not.

Fuck him. He's a jerk, and if he loses by one vote, I'll take full responsibility.
Unless he apologizes, I won't vote for him. And I'm not holding my breath.

[ProSense]

23. How many Repubs

have criticized McCain for being Bush's whipping boy in 2000? Hell they're holidng him up as the ideal candidate.

Democrats need to cut this crap out. Legitimate criticism are one thing, but when you have people on your side making up crap, how the hell can you turn around and talk about the Republicans' smear?

[karynnj]

24. In fairness, McCain is the opposite in that example

The parallel circumstance would have been if he flamed Bush and praised his friend, Senator Kerry.

Here the problem with Rendell is that he is using language that is over the top and splits the party. If he meant that Kerry, and other Democrats running, should concentrate on the issues the Democrats are perceived strongest on (economics) and minimize the times they bring up the issue that Republicans are perceived strongest at (national security), he should say that clearly.

Then it would be clear he is talking strategy, not the underlying values of the candidates. For Rendell, though it would convert something that people can buy into in a knee jerk thoughtless manner to a serious discussion which he likely would't win, though the truth can't be known. When the world is a mess, we need someone who can demonstrate foreign policy experience, understanding of the military, and terrorism. While Kerry had excellent Denmocratic credentials on the all the economic issues (except trade - where he was never as far away as Clinton), but he also had enormous strength on the other issues. Not talking about them would be as smart as accidently discarding an "A" in a card game where aces were high.

What's clear to me, is that Kerry was outstanding on the Republican issue - which is why he had the major jump in the polls after the first debate. It wasn't that he fought in Vietnam, but that he worked very hard on the SRFC for nearly 20 years. Any politician had to at minimum demonstrate that they were adequate on this issue - because for people who already gave Bush a pass on this until they accepted Kerry as at least a peer on these things, they didn't want to hear about health care.

That's why in the primaries, it was fair when Kerry and others pointed to Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. This was a liability. (Dean pointed to the lack of CEO experience of the DC based people.) This may be an issue again with Warner and Vilsack, people Rendell from earlier posts is impressed by. (It also is true for Rendell himself.) There's a DU-P thread where Warner wasn't up to speaking about Iraq - where the Warner supporters argue it's not important or brilliantly argue that it's not a valid question because it is posted by a known Clark supporter.

[ginnyinWI]

26. I agree 100%, Karen

It looks like Rendell is the one who's out of touch.

I really like your point about Kerry (and any Dem) needing to be good on national security/foreign policy issues. It's a different world now, politically, since 9/11. A Clinton-type Dem governor isn't going to do it for people anymore, now that they have become aware of outside threats.
I think those of Kerry's advisers who were pursuing a Clinton-campaign strategy were behind the times; Dems can't just win on the bread and butter issues anymore. I think this is why Kerry won the nomination by such a landslide, and why he almost won the presidency. Without *'s incumbency and dirty tricks, I'm sure he would have won.

[ProSense]

27. Missed my point!

Rendell a Democrat is criticizing a Democrat using albeit a false statement.

A Republican criticizing McCain using the smear incident, albeit true, is analogous.

I agree, it is about splitting the party, and in the above scenarios, the Democrats continue to do so and the Republicans refrain.

Your points are correct, but they go to the issue of why Rendell is incorrect, not the basic issue of being divisive. This has nothing to do with the primaries, and everything to do with being divisive. And my example of McCain, although the smear occurred during the primaries, is relevant because if a Republican was to use it as criticism now, that would be divisive. Maybe they will when the primaries roll around.

Another reason I used the smear as an example of divisiveness is the ongoing criticisms of Kerry's response to the SVBT from Democrats. McCain pretty much rolled over when Bush smeared him, but the Repubs and MSM seem to have no problem holding him up as a viable candidate. I was so happy when Kerry pointed out this hypocrisy during one of his recent interviews when asked about 2008.

[karynnj]

29. You're correct I did miss your point

- looking at McCain 2004, not 2000 in fact. Which is bad, because wow that I see it, your point is very very insightful.

The Republicans allow rifts to heal while we dwell on them. You are so correct that neither the MSM or the Republicans even whisper that McCain very quickly imploded when he was smeared. Kerry actually DID rise above the smears - it's interesting that you hear people who say - that OTHERS may have believed the lies so they hurt Kerry, but I have never heard or read anyone saying they voted against Kerry because of them. Kerry actually handled a much more intensive smearing better than McCain did.

Yet, the Republicans cover over what happened and certainly don't criticse MCCain (or Bush)for it. On the other hand, the Democrats are almost using the SBVT to hit Kerry with themselves. What's tragic, in a way, is that they could have (even after the election) have turned the use of this tactict against the Republicans. But, they would selfishly prefer to blame Kerry. (The opportune time would have been for many Democrats to have found a way to hit home that Kerry's records showed he had been complete and honest in what he said about his record.)

[ProSense]

30. Good point.

"Kerry actually handled a much more intensive smearing better than McCain did."


This should be pointed out often.

[ginnyinWI]

25. very good letter, GV

The only thing I'd add is something like, "...and this is why Democrats lose elections--so many Dems are only out for themselves."

[ProSense]

31. GV, who else has a shot against Swann?

The guy is a kook:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2456587&mesg_id=2456587

[globalvillage]

32. This is good.

Means I don't have to vote for him.

Poll gives Rendell 12-point lead over Swann
Thursday, February 16, 2006

By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau



HARRISBURG -- Republican Lynn Swann's lack of experience in politics seems to be hurting him early in his race for governor, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.

The poll, taken Feb. 8-13, showed Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell holding a comfortable lead of 48 percent to 36 percent over Mr. Swann, a former Steelers wide receiver and TV sportscaster.

The poll also showed that only 26 percent of the 1,045 Pennsylvania voters surveyed thought Mr. Swann "has the right kind of experience to be governor,'' said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Connecticut.

"Forty percent of the respondents said he doesn't have the experience and 34 percent were undecided,'' Mr. Richards added.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06047/656195.stm

Rendell has still not answered my e-mail.

[ProSense]

33. I hope he beats that nut case

Swann. Geez, he's scary.

[globalvillage]

34. He was a great football player.

Graceful. He was a ballet dancer, you know.
All his talent is in his feet, though. I don't think that qualifies him to be gov of PA.
Of course, we're stuck with Rendell, but better him than Swann.

edit for clarity. Swann was the ballet dancer, not Rendell.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[globalvillage]

35. Hahahahaha

Newspaper: Swann missed 20 of 36 elections in the past 18 years
Friday, February 17, 2006

By The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA -- Republican gubernatorial hopeful Lynn Swann didn't vote in 20 of the state's 36 elections in the last 18 years, a newspaper reported yesterday, citing voting records.

The elections Swann missed included votes for governor, U.S. senator and president, and 13 of his own party's primaries, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

Ironically, in an October 2004 interview with the Sun-Sentinel newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Swann had said, "I have always been someone to believe that when you have certain freedoms, you should exercise them and not take it for granted. If you don't take part in the process and you don't vote, then I am not willing to listen to your complaints."

http://post-gazette.com/pg/06048/656850.stm

I have no room to talk, my voting record has been spotty until recently, but I'm not denying it or running for governor of Pennsylvania. I think Lynn's screwed.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wisteria]

36. I saw that yesterday. The Repubs better get him a script soon or

he is going to be dead in the water except in my area. I don't know about your end of town, but my end would actually vote for this guy- just because he is a Repub.