Skip to main content

View Diary: Blogosphere Day: Support Act Blue (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Voter Rights Protection? (0+ / 0-)

    Kerry who? Didn't he run for president in 2004? Oh yeah, he got the 2nd Democratic presidential victory stolen in a row from him, in Ohio. I remember - he was the guy who was going to make voter rights protection his top priority, because he learned how bad the situation is, the hard way.

    How come I haven't seen any changes to protect voter rights, even though he's been in the Senate the past 3 years since? Including the past half year he's had a Democratic Congress to play with. In fact, things look at least as bad, especially in light of the US Attorney purge and related conspiracy to destroy Democratic voter chances to vote their candidates to victory. Just like what happened to him in Ohio.

    But I do see this Kerry guy showing his face around to rub elbows with Act Blue and other favorite DKos brands. I guess there is a higher priority for Kerry than voter rights. It's getting himself reelected, hiding among the coattails of the rest of the Democrats.

    I guess he figures "voter rights" means he has a right to getting votes, because he got so many in 2004, but didn't use them.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:53:41 PM PDT

    •  I am a HUGE Kerry supporter since IranContra (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MH in PA, DocGonzo, dynamicdems

      and BCCI investigations and know how difficult it is for honest lawmakers to investigate the powerstructure that controls all of DC,  but I have to agree with the Doc on this one.

      There are only TWO LAWMAKERS with the CAPABILITY of blowing the doors off the election fraud issue, and that is the investigator lawmaker extraordinaire, John Kerry and the documenter/teacher extraordinaire Al Gore.

      Too bad you both have the Clintons and and their team stonewalling for BushInc and sabotaging you over the years.

      •  No Heroes (0+ / 0-)

        Even when he investigated Iran/Contra and BCCI, and exposed fundamental, epochal frauds and even treasons, even systemic ones in our entire government, Kerry failed. Not just to bring the guilty to justice. Kerry failed to take the real risk in demanding and enforcing justice. To put his own career actually on the line, even if he failed to either get justice or to keep his power.

        Then he did it again in 2004 when he conceded knowing Ohio was rigged to steal the victory from him.

        In fact, looking at the (by now, thoroughly cooked by every side) history of his Vietnam heroics, I can see what happened. As a youth, having seen both Kennedys (whom he'd personally met, and surely admired as peers from the same Boston culture) killed while standing up for the country, he still ran into Vietnam. Where he faced (and took) hot metal threatening his life. But returning home, he handed back his medals. And then ran for Congress.

        I think his post Vietnam experience taught him not to be a hero. To jump into the fight, to push aside others to lead the fight, but to stay engaged at the front line so he can avoid the ultimate sacrifice. Rather than let someone else command him, which could get him killed, Kerry holds the reins, pulling out before he can be sacrificed for the cause.

        Even if that means losing the fight.

        He's no hero. He once was, but that very heroism taught him the hollowness of heroism. Too bad we all thought he would at least go down fighting.

        And in the vote fraud crusade, all he offers is a hero's uniform and slogans, while never even making it to the fight.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 10:23:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree - I believe firmly that Kerry wanted (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karenc, MH in PA

          to get into that oval office to have the access to OPEN THOSE BOOKS that only a president could.  The DC powerstructure couldn't smear him with 'conspiracy theory nut' as they tried before with documents in hand and with investigative reporters combing through those long withheld files.

          Do you think YOU could have withstood sticking to a BCCI investigation with all of DC set up working against you?

          Kerry did for over FIVE YEARS, mostly on his own, against his own party's wishes, and under constant death threats, too.

          IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning books would have finally seen the light of day with Kerry in office and with the additional documents that were withheld for all those years.  Then they would REALLY understand the terrorism issue and these oil wars.

          I believe that firmly - and I would dare say that both Gary Webb and Hunter Thompson believed it, too, and were counting on that.

          Kerry had ALOT of Dems helping the powerstructure to steal that election. Without legal evidence he had no recourse but to continue fighting the battles he could as Senator.

          Not easy, when so many are aligned against you and the open government positions you represent.

          •  Almost, But Not Quite (0+ / 0-)

            I agree with everything you're saying. Kerry did do all those hard things. But Ohio wasn't even as quixotic as you describe: there was loads of evidence, plenty of time to catalog it - Conyers has produced well enough for a credible lawsuit. And plenty of money, over $15M that people like me donated knowing we'd probably face another Bush v Gore, to fight, even before the fight materialized - after which the money would pour in from the 50M+ people whose candidate had won (again!) but needed to win the last 9 votes to see him inaugurated.

            Kerry did do the hard things, even dangerous things.

            Until he got to the point where he would have to commit to personal sacrifice beyond hard work, possibly career-ending, with the chance (perhaps likelihood) of failing to even succeed in exposing the criminals.

            That's the point where he drops the campaign.

            I don't say that he's a coward. It takes guts to even go down that path, especially if you're scared - which only pathological denial or megalomania could prevent. But he's no hero. A hero does what's right, even if success is unlikely and doom is nearly, or completely certain.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:24:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And maybe that is what he's doing now - (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karenc, MH in PA

              doing what he feel CAN be done in a way that he can effect.

              But being laughed completely off the radar screen with no voice left at all was his fate - and that fate would have been OUR fate in the long run.

              I completely agree with you that Kerry should be all over this issue like white on rice and wish it was more public an issue - and I can only hope that in some way he is still listening. I know Teresa is 100% convinced of the treachery of the election fraud.  I also know that Jon Winer believes it, too. So, I have to believe that there is still more to come and eyes and ears are on alert at all times.

          •  I agree with you completely (0+ / 0-)

            Kerry was a hero in the time since Vietnam. He did risk personal sacrifice in fighting the Vietnam War, the Contra atrocities, and the dangers that BCCI represented. In all these cases he did take the lead role and did not avoid being the leader.

            What he risked in all these instances were the loss of his political career and his reputation - both of which clearly mean an enormous amount to him.

            Looking just at BCCI and the Contra drug running, he had to know that standing against nearly the entire Senate and ignoring pleas from Jackie Onassis and Jimmy Carter to stop (on BCCI), was the action of someone more deeply concerned about his country than his own political future.

            Those heroic actions were done to stop very bad things, that no one else of his prominence was willing to lift a finger to counter. It likely did make post 911 easier that the terrorists did not have a US bank under their influence. Stopping a major source of cocaine coming into the country may have been one factor in the inner cities becoming safer in the 1990s than they were in the 1980s.

            Politically neither of these two major accomplishments could be used to the degree that they should have been in a fair world. How do you bring up the seamiest side of Iran/Contra in the months after Reagan's death - when the media nearly declared him an American saint? In a time when Americans are tramatied and feel insecure, how do you explain that the majority of Senators were 100% against Kerry's BCCI work - preferring to protect their friends who had been co-opted, rather than root out the tentacles of a bank with terrorist, international crime  and drug running links?

            These all attest to the Seantor's willingness to intelligently fight evil even where it could destroy his career. In 2004, there were two major differences:

            • He needed to have a solid case in a very short time - and that case does not exist even now.
            • He was not speaking just for himself, but as the head of the Democratic party. That responsibility had to make him more risk adverse - both as he ran and in the aftermath of the election. With the war where it was and the media already speaking of an enormous Bush victory (though it was close.), he could have destroyed the Democratic party.
            •  Sorry to say I only saw this now - (0+ / 0-)

              and too late to give it a hearty recommend.

              You get it - and that means alot these days when most folks are easily spun by the cotton candy that gets tossed to them by most of those who claim to be newsmedia.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site