John Kerry, Dumber than Dirt: "We didn't lose the election..."

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
I told you, in outcome based elections... second place isn't bad. Now I have a dumb ass loser explaining why.

Newsweek

Jan. 10 issue - It was a little after 7 p.m. on election night 2004. The network exit polls showed John Kerry leading George Bush in both Florida and Ohio by three points. Kerry's aides were confident that the Democratic candidate would carry these key swings states; Bush had not broken 48 percent in Kerry's recent tracking polls. The aides were a little hesitant to interrupt Kerry as he was fielding satellite TV interviews in a last get-out-the-vote push. Still, the 7 o'clock exit polls were considered to be reasonably reliable. Time to tell the candidate the good news.

Kerry had slept only two hours the night before. He was sitting in a small hotel room at the Westin Copley (in a small irony of history, next door to the hotel where his grandfather, a boom-and-bust businessman, shot himself some 80 years ago). Bob Shrum, Kerry's friend and close adviser, couldn't resist the moment. "May I be the first to say 'Mr. President'?" said Shrum.

The others cringed. Kerry did not respond, at least in any memorable way. In the dark days after the election, he tried a joke: "Until about 7 p.m. that night, it felt great to be the 44th president of the United States." Ever since election night, John Kerry has been trying hard to learn from his mistakes, to cheer his disappointed followers, to avoid sinking into the inevitable depression—and to plot his own comeback.

Kerry has not given any formal interviews since his defeat. But on Nov. 11, nine days after the election, Kerry summoned a NEWSWEEK reporter to his house on Boston's fashionable Louisberg Square. He wanted to complain about NEWSWEEK's election issue, which he said was unduly harsh and gossipy about him, his staff and his wife. (The 45,000-word article, the product of a yearlong reporting project, is being published next week as a book, "Election 2004," by PublicAffairs.)

Despite, or because of, a somewhat stoical and severe New England upbringing, Kerry has a tendency to natter at his subordinates, to blame everyone but himself. ("Did he whine?" was the first question one senior Kerry aide asked of the NEWSWEEK reporter who had recently been to see Kerry.) On this damp November evening, he appeared alone in the house; he answered the door and showed his visitor into a cozy, book-lined drawing room. His face was deeply lined, his eyes drooped, he looked like he hadn't slept in about two years. But his manner was resolute, his mood seemed calm, even chipper.

Why did he lose? Kerry points to history and, in a somewhat inferential, roundabout way, to his own failure to connect to voters—a failure that kept him from erasing the Bush campaign's portrait of him as a flip-flopper. Kerry said that he was proud of his campaign, that he had nearly defeated a popular incumbent who had enjoyed a three-year head start on organizing and fund-raising. Sitting presidents are never defeated in wartime, he insisted (true, though two, LBJ and Harry Truman, chose not to run for another term during Vietnam and Korea). Kerry did not wish to be directly quoted touting himself, however; he did not wish to appear defensive or boastful.

He never quite came out and said it, but Kerry sounded very much like a man who was running for president again. He has a mailing list with 2.9 million names and an organization in every state. His moneymen have not backed away. By and large, Kerry has not been blamed for the defeat, at least not the way former vice president Al Gore was after the 2000 election. Some of Kerry's followers are already plotting how Kerry can defeat Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses in 2008. The conventional wisdom, already congealing before Bush's second Inaugural, pictures Kerry and Clinton as the early Democratic front runners.

Not all of Kerry's supporters are so sanguine. In the heady days before the election, Kerry's top aides sat around picking a cabinet (one plan was to ask Colin Powell to stay on as secretary of State, thereby avoiding a massive power struggle between Sen. Joe Biden and Democratic foreign-policy wise man Richard Holbrooke). Nowadays the foreign-policy team still meets on the assumption that it could be reconstituted for '08. But the reality is, "it's mostly sitting around some lawyer's office and asking each other if we've heard about jobs," says a member of the team. As for Kerry, says this adviser, "he thinks he's the front runner for '08 without recognizing that he needs to do some soul-searching. If he wants to come back, he'll have to come back as a different candidate, not the stiff who plays it safe and takes four sides of every issue."



Newsweek Article (MSNBC)
 
LMFAO
Kerry did not wish to be directly quoted touting himself, however; he did not wish to appear defensive or boastful.

edit: I still cant believe the anyone but Bush campaign didnt work
 
[quote name='bignick']edit: I still cant believe the anyone but Bush campaign didnt work[/quote]

It worked very well for its intended purpose, which was to keep people from voteing for Nader.
 
I've never heard anyone label John Kerry as "dumb" before. I also want to point out that your article is not assessing the intelligence of John Kerry, PAD.

The point is that Karl Rove is a political genius who is not afraid to play dirty, right from the start.

Bush is a dyslexic ex-alcoholic who can only think of the world in a literal sense. However he does have an image that plays well in Peoria.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='bignick']edit: I still cant believe the anyone but Bush campaign didnt work[/quote]

It worked very well for its intended purpose, which was to keep people from voteing for Nader.[/quote]

I was all for Bush. I was joking with my quote.
 
[quote name='bignick'][quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='bignick']edit: I still cant believe the anyone but Bush campaign didnt work[/quote]

It worked very well for its intended purpose, which was to keep people from voteing for Nader.[/quote]

I was all for Bush. I was joking with my quote.[/quote]

I know you were, I just added to it since some people do believe it actually failed.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='bignick'][quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='bignick']edit: I still cant believe the anyone but Bush campaign didnt work[/quote]

It worked very well for its intended purpose, which was to keep people from voteing for Nader.[/quote]

I was all for Bush. I was joking with my quote.[/quote]

I know you were, I just added to it since some people do believe it actually failed.[/quote]

Lol. I didnt think you were joking. lol I get it now.
 
You've never heard anyone call John Kerry dumb? When you state that "We didn't lose the election, we just didn't win." you're dumb. You're stone cold stupid.

This will play well in 2008 when a Democratic challenger for the nomination plasters this on him in Iowa or New Hampshire and he loses... oops, I mean when he doesn't win again.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You've never heard anyone call John Kerry dumb? When you state that "We didn't lose the election, we just didn't win." you're dumb. You're stone cold stupid.

This will play well in 2008 when a Democratic challenger for the nomination plasters this on him in Iowa or New Hampshire and he loses... oops, I mean when he doesn't win again.[/quote]

Again, that's your opinion. I think Kerry's trying to say that half of America didn't lose in this election, they just didn't get their first choice. Remember, he's saying that everyone wins in a fair, truly democratic election.

Kerry lost the election and 2008 is a long way away. He is as significant as any highly visible US Senator now. We all know this, what's the big deal here?
 
[quote name='camoor']I've never heard anyone label John Kerry as "dumb" before. I also want to point out that your article is not assessing the intelligence of John Kerry, PAD.

The point is that Karl Rove is a political genius who is not afraid to play dirty, right from the start.

Bush is a dyslexic ex-alcoholic who can only think of the world in a literal sense. However he does have an image that plays well in Peoria.[/quote]

Whereas the Kerry side kept it all on the up and up? Um, yeah. Three numbers: 5-2-7.

Way to go, hypocritical liberal. I thought alcoholism was a disease, and here you are insulting Bush, calling him an 'ex-alcoholic.' And dyslexia definitely is a disease/illness/impairment, dare I say, handicap? How delightfully politically incorrect you are.

"I think Kerry's trying to say that half of America didn't lose in this election, they just didn't get their first choice."

Which is exactly how almost EVERY election is. Never a big deal when it was Clinton who didn't get the majority, but still won, but now that GWB won a decisive majority, 'half of America didn't get their first choice.' Not even mentioning the fact that ~40% or so didn't even bother to vote, so 'half of America' is a vast overstatement.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Whereas the Kerry side kept it all on the up and up? Um, yeah. Three numbers: 5-2-7.

Way to go, hypocritical liberal. I thought alcoholism was a disease, and here you are insulting Bush, calling him an 'ex-alcoholic.' And dyslexia definitely is a disease/illness/impairment, dare I say, handicap? How delightfully politically incorrect you are.

"I think Kerry's trying to say that half of America didn't lose in this election, they just didn't get their first choice."

Which is exactly how almost EVERY election is. Never a big deal when it was Clinton who didn't get the majority, but still won, but now that GWB won a decisive majority, 'half of America didn't get their first choice.' Not even mentioning the fact that ~40% or so didn't even bother to vote, so 'half of America' is a vast overstatement.[/quote]

Note that I said "Karl Rove is a political genius who is not afraid to play dirty, right from the start." I never said that Kerry didn't play dirty, but I do believe that Bush and Karl played a much dirtier, more devious political game.

I never said alcoholism was a disease and I don't believe that. Dyslexia is a serious learning and knowledge-comprehension problem, and it should be treated accordingly. Bush is in denial about his dyslexia, and it's resulted in detremental government decisions and policies; in addition to a fall in credibility around the world.

I'm glad you agree with Kerry's statement. It was a great concilliatory comment, affirming that even though the Democratic party lost the election, we are all still Americans who believe in our Democratic Republic
 
[quote name='camoor']
I never said that Kerry didn't play dirty, but I do believe that Bush and Karl played a much dirtier, more devious political game.[/quote]

So that excuses democrats, I guess, because they didn't start it.

Bush is in denial about his dyslexia, and it's resulted in detremental government decisions and policies; in addition to a fall in credibility around the world.

Dyslexia, the real reason for world's problems. And I thought it was ADHD.

I'm glad you agree with Kerry's statement. It was a great concilliatory comment, affirming that even though the Democratic party lost the election, we are all still Americans who believe in our Democratic Republic

You give Kerry too much credit. It's in his nature to use doublespeak in place of any deroggatory term used in tandem with himself, his party, or his agenda. It's like the salesperson trained never to use the word 'no'. He's a master of redefining meaningful phrases into ambiguous soundbytes that have multiple interpretations. Democrats always need to overanalyze them for some reason.
 
I think we can both agree that ADHD is a crutch used by ineffective parents so they can give their kids soporific drugs.

I always understood the message of Kerry's speeches, however I'm still analyzing this comment by Bush:

"I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully"

Thank goodness, we can stop the fish wars today!?
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Has any one from a major party ran for president after loosing the election once?[/quote]

Nixon has already been pointed out. Grover Cleveland actually won two non-consecutive terms in the late 1800s (he lost reelection to Benjamin Harrison but won another four years in the next election). And Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate IIRC in 1912.

And it's "losing", not "loosing". "Loosing" means something much different, actually. One of my pet peeves.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']john kerry is an asshole! and so is every liberal.[/quote]

Can we ban this asshole yet?

At least when PAD and others say dumb things they believe it for a reason and state the reason. Even if it is dumb they express why they believe that way, which is more than anyone can say about you.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']He's entitled to his opinion. He's about as smart as his idol.[/quote]

But he's clearly a troll, no serious person makes these kinds of comments, it's the only type of reply he makes. They are made purely to get a reaction.
 
[quote name='MrFriday18']john kerry is an asshole! and so is every liberal.[/quote]

Wow, me tink you so intelligent. Pls make more smart so we can set them up the bomb!
 
Well I can some up my opinion In just a couple of sentences, so I don't have to go on and BS. Also I'll take back my comment I still do not like John Kerry but I do like the new Governor of New Jersey, Richard Codey(D). I like what he has done for security issues in NJ such as protecting our malls. Also I like how he isn't corrupt like NJ's previous governor Jim McGreevey. And if you guys would like me to respond in an intelligent manner I will do that for here on out.
The reason I type like a moron is b/c I get pissed off when I read these posts most of the time and I type horrifically fast. So there you go.
Thank You.
 
I can think of better representatives for the right-ward cause than you. All you seem to be doing is undermining the anti-left point of view by being an idiot and giving them an easy target to aim for. I suggest you stop being a knee jerk, gut slinging emotionalist and put some intellectualism into your opinions. Give the gaming community a better representative than the norm. Most here from both sides of the aisle expect more from their kind.

Remember, this is a public forum and you are a reflection of the gamer community to america, and anyone else who chooses to read these boards. Unless you name is ron artest, I think you may be able to do better.
 
bread's done
Back
Top