Daily Kos

View Story | 555 comments

  •  Why This Story is Self Defeating (2.00 / 3)

    First, I'm not troll rating anyone who says this is a conspiracy, and what about the Troll ratings I get for posting an alternative hypothesis?

    The reason I keep pushing the fact that it could be a mistake is because I think the whole story is sour grapes bullshit.  

    Here are a few of my main objections to the whiney, self-defeating, conspiratorial, conjectures going on this post.

    1.  This kind of speculative Bullshit is what dogged Clinton for eight years - Vince Foster's murder, his illegitimate love child, ad nausea.  The most alarming thing about it was the Left bought into the obvious Heritage Foundation story plants without any shred of evidence.  
    2.  The article mentions robo-calling with the wrong address, but on this thread that has expanded to every paranoid campaign fantasy in the book, including the stuff about Dean's Jewish wife.  The Jewish wife thing is itself, if true, which I highly doubt, pretty much excludes Kerry from a possible participant.  One, I know for a fact he would never condone that, and two even if you believe your wild "Kerry is an Slimy Sea Monster" stuff people are posting here (and you are talking about a decorated war hero who marched on Washington against Nixon before most of these posters were even born!), its just too risky to do something like that.  There is no way even the W teams (who ARE a bunch of slimy sea monsters) would do calls like that.  
    3.  If this practice was so widespread, why aren't there any tape recordings of these calls?  Didn't someone have an answering machine they could switch on.  If this practice were so widespread, there would be some evidence other than a supposed Trippi uttering in a not-yet-published article of GQ.  Without evidence, this story is a joke.  
    4. You hear this stuff, anytime a popular candidate loses.  When Brown lost in New York, we all griped about how Clinton Staffers tore down our signs.  When Dinkins lost to Giuliani, we all blew out of proportion stories about cops keeping inner city blacks from the polls (I was in Brownsville on election day 1993 - Didn't happen). Gore lost in Florida because of the purging of the voter lists (sure that didn't help, but Gore lost in Florida because starry-eyed kids voted for Nader).  I'm not saying Dean can't win the nomination, but I guarantee he has no chance if all his people sit here wallowing in this "woe-is-me, I got dirty tricked" crap.
    5.  Dean lost in Iowa because DEMOCRATS perceived that he has no chance against Bush, Before Iowa all I heard from any of my committed (over age 30 friends) was, "Is Dean actually the candidate we're going go with in this thing?  We're gonna get killed." Do you under-30's really think you have the right to tell life-long Democrats who've fought these wars their entire live's that the only reason your candidate could possibly lose is because he got dirty tricked?   Point being, there are reasons why candidates win and candidates lose.  Dean fell in Iowa sure, but Kerry also ROSE in Iowa.  No one has ever gotten dirty-tricked from all directions like Clinton did (his opponents launched a phony impeachment against him, they published books calling him a murderer, they made up stories about his wife being a lesbian), but he won because he's a good candidate. Even if all the wildest stuff on here were true, which I sincerely doubt, it wouldn't make any difference if Dean were a good enough Candidate.  Here in Georgia I don't know a single Democrat over age 30 who supports Dean, and the campaigns haven't spent one red cent here.  Unlike Northeasterners, here in Georgia, with no state government to protect us, we actually KNOW what its like to live under Republican rule, which is why we're so, committed to ending it.    
    6.  Say Dean does find a way to make pigs fly and becomes the candidate?  Are you gonna drag this whiney, the whole world is against me crap into the general election?
    7.  Democrats shouldn't make unsubstantiated charges against other Democrats in a public forum without evidence.  Give me evidence and this is a different story, but there is none, so we should drop it. This story is like when I go to Drudge and see "Dean has sex with monkey . . . Developing" In other words, it's an unsubstantiated smear.
    8.  Finally, its just plain funny to me to think about all these incredibly earnest youngsters going to the end of the earth to find a "Kerry-connection" when the answer could be as simple as a wrong address.  Even if you hate my views, you gotta admit the "Walnut Street . . . or Maple Street!?!" thought is funny.

    John McCain

    by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nice Try (3.33 / 3)

      Nice Try.  But certain facts are indisputable.  First that someone was using Robocalls to send inaccurate information and smear Dean.  What is disputable is which campaign did it,  and who from the campaign knew it was going on.

      It should not be dropped, it should be investigated.  Perhaps quietly but thoroughly so that we know that everything is on the up and up and then we will have no misgivings about supporting Kerry should he become the nominee.

      by Bri on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A quiet investigation would fine (none / 0)

        I would support a quiet investigation.  That would be great.  Investigate, and keep it quiet unless real evidence emerges.  

        Since I don't think it happened, and if it did, I don't think it came from Kerry, he shouldn't have anything to hide in an investigation.  Is there a Kos'er out there qualified to compile hard evidence soberly and quietly?

        John McCain

        by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 11:38:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clurg.. (3.50 / 2)

          Ok, now you troll rate me simply for asking you a question.

          Let's get something straight- you rated people who were simply stating that Dean didn't use recorded phone calls with a "1", they didn't even argue it either way just pointed out that the campaign didn't use that methodology.

          That's not trolling.

          There is a difference between posting something like, "kerry's an evil putz who no doubt used these tactics" and an open discussion on what happened. What you are doing is contributing to what you are trying to argue against- divisive comments.

          The rating system is not suppose to be abused like this. If you don't agree with someone then post an opposite view don't troll rate. The system is for those who post things that are obviously disrespectful and add squat to the conversation.

          If you want to troll rate this post too feel free- I'm pretty sure it won't chink my TUS.

          "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry, 1971 but what we needed to hear in 2003/2004

          by Demise on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What are you talking about? (none / 0)

            You're insane?  I am not the demon Troll rater.  The only person I gave a 1 too is the guy who called me a dumbass, and people who put one sentence comments up.

            Someone besides me must be giving them 1's.  

            Besides, who cares what your comments are rated?

            Geez.

            John McCain

            by dbratl on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:19:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  One sentence comments (none / 0)

              Ya, you troll rated one sentence comments that focused on the fact that Dean's campaign didn't use recorded calls- it's a valid response to your finger pointing at DFA.

              If you don't use recorded calls, how could a Dean campaign staffer make a mistake?

              Then, you troll rate me simply for asking what is motivating you to act in this manner.

              Whatever. I must be insane.

              "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" -John Kerry, 1971 but what we needed to hear in 2003/2004

              by Demise on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 06:44:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent post (none / 0)

      ...thank you!

      Point #5 is especially good.  Deaniacs are failing to acknowledge that Dean simply wasn't able to "close the deal" with Iowa voters - and it's not because his #1s or #2s weren't able to find the caucuses.  Besides, his #1s should know where the caucuses are being held regardless of a last minute "reminder" phone call if they were really good #1s.  It's my understanding that Kerry's campaign did a better job at preparing their #1s and that's part of the reason they were able to do so well in the caucuses.

      by Aylene on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But (none / 0)

        That has nothing to do with whether Kerry is robo-calling or not. The evidence is there. Once again, this point may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the accusation.

        Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

        by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:23:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 555 comments