Hey! Kerry! Cough It Up!

[elucidator]

Don't like what we're hearing, John. Long time fan, myself, but you got me scratching my head wondering WTF? Hearing stuff about how you and some others in the "centrist" wing are sitting on piles of cash, stockpiling for later political moves. Thats like shutting down the fire hose when your house is blazing because you may need to water your lawn.

It won't do, podnuh. It simply won't do.

"You and I have been through this, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late"
- St. Robert of Hibbing

I don't give two shits for your ambitions. Wouldn't mind a bit having you for a candidate, don't mind Gore, Edwards be OK too. Don't trust Hilary.

The time is crucial, this election could be one of the major turning points. We need, desperately need a broad, wide, and deep repudiation of the Bushivik agenda, which is a cancer on our very souls. If I work at it really hard, I might be able to exagerrate that importance.

By the grace of a just and loving Goddess, we have an opportunity. Power to change is within our grasp, as well as an opportunity to demonstrate just what it is that makes democracy the tits: that we can change our minds. And when we change our minds, we change our leader's minds, because we get to reach into our pockets and squeeze thier balls every few years.

Pour out the money. Borrow money. Beg money. Write bad checks. Whatever. If a candidate is within ten points as of last week, he has a chance. Within five points, a very good chance.

If the Forces of Darkness do not recieve a sound thrashing, a blistering repudiation, they will claim victory. Hell, they claimed a mandate when they lost the popular vote! There must be no "wiggle roon", no "yes, but...".

"In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damned good whacking!"
- Some rock band.

Screw your ambitions, screw theirs, but don't screw us. I hear reasonable suggestions of 30% of your campaign war chest. I say "sic 'em!". Throw it all in. You once were willing to risk your ambitions in the name of truth. And I applauded you. Once more, then. Do it for your country, and the cheers will ring in you ears for years to come, if you are never elected for anything again, ever. Be the leader, John, show 'em what class is! 'Cause you can bet yer Yalie ass that if you throw down, they wouldn't dare not emulate you. How would you like to hear "frontrunner" again? Well, there's how. Lead.

Fail us, turn away to cherish some future ambition....well, what can one say? Fuck ya.

[Giles]

Are you talking about this kind of story (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/21/kerry_is_pressured_to_share_campaign_wealth/) ?

[elucidator]

Just so. Would have provided the link myself, but I'm lazy and easily....ooh! Shiny!

[Caridwen]

Maybe he's planning on trying to run again?

[jjimm]

"Some rock band" being that little-known four-piece beat combo known popularly as "The Beatles".

[wring]

Maybe he's planning on trying to run again?
the OP seems to take that into account and is chiding him for that, suggesting that an altruistic, 'Merica loving Dem at this point would be all about wrestling controll of the legislature away from teh souless.

[Caridwen]

Well, he does have a point, and he's not the only candidate sitting on pots of money. Gore did give his money back and he really should give some portion back especially since there are so many critical elections.

It seems like the republicans are always better funded or better organized even at local levels. I'm pretty involved in local politics in my area and for the last election the amount of money that trickled down was nothing compared to republican candidates in our area and we had a candidate running for governor that had money and had a well funded campaign.

[DoctorJ]

"Some rock band" being that little-known four-piece beat combo known popularly as "The Beatles".
Beatles, eh? Oh yes, I seem to remember their off-key caterwauling on the old Sullivan Show. What was Ed thinking?

[Shayna]

Including the $1 million he gave to the DSCC in December 2004, Kerry has doled out $2.8 million to party campaign committees, state parties, and individual candidates since the 2004 election. He has also helped bring in some $7 million for candidates through fund-raisers and his political action committee, including $1.7 million that has gone to Democratic Senate candidates.

<snip>

Kerry aides said the senator saved the cash to cover leftover presidential campaign bills and to pay for lawyers in case he had to challenge voting irregularities in some states or if his race against President Bush had to be settled in court.

Though he quickly kicked in $1 million to the DSCC, gave $500,000 to the DCCC, and $1 million to the Democratic National Committee, Kerry has held on to the bulk of his campaign money as he prepares for a possible second run at the White House in 2008. 'luci, have you drained your savings account for our cause? If not, why not? If you haven't, why should you expect John Kerry to? Why isn't $11.3 million dollars in personal donations and funds raised enough, just because he has more he could potentially give? If he genuinely thinks he's the best candidate to turn this nation around, why would squandering his assets against his interests in that effort be better for this nation than a Kerry Presidency in '08? I don't agree that he'd be the best candidate (my money's on Obama), but why shouldn't he? You might be able to convince me that he's being stingy against our party's and our country's best interest, but so far I'm not necessarily buying it.

[elucidator]

Darlin', you got any idea how much money I don't have?

[ElvisL1ves]

Kerry's been hitting the campaign trail pretty hard for a lot of these guys. Go a little easier on him, willya?

Besides, he does need to buy national advertising in 2 years.

[MovieMogul]

Kerry's been hitting the campaign trail pretty hard for a lot of these guys. Go a little easier on him, willya?Let's be honest, "hitting the campaign trail" does less for the Dems he's obstensively supporting and more for Kerry's massively bruised ego. If he honestly thinks he has any real chance in 2008, he's delusional (and I've seen plenty of quotes from him to support this). He had his shot and he screwed it up big time, and all he can come up with are excuses.

If it was any other candidate, I might understand. But Kerry's a tool who doesn't hesitate in calling those who are asking for his help, as described in the OP, as "cowards" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/us/politics/24donate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin). He needs to get off the stage and make room for a real candidate.

[Wolfian]

"Some rock band" being that little-known four-piece beat combo known popularly as "The Beatles".
More accurately George Harrison and his mother, which is farkin' awesome.

[elucidator]

Just a point of fact, Archie. The quote is from Kerry's "spokesman", a Mr. Wade, and is aimed at bloggers criticizing, not directly aimed at candidates beseeching his aid. Just to clarify, you understand.

That said, if Kerry wants to lead, he should lead. Show how its done. If he doesn't want to lead, he still has some obligation to the collective effort above and beyond his personal ambitions, otherwise, he represents nothing more than his ambition.

I have long been a fan of Mr. Kerry, since anti-war days. The other anti-war. But I also recognize that here is a man who has wanted to be President since he could spell it. And that's ok, nothing wrong with ambition held in check by principles. Ah, but there's the rub, no?

So here's his chance. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Keep in mind, I'm only focusing on Kerry because he 1) so visible and 2) I want to be right about him. I want to see him put his country above himself, once again. But there are several others who rightly deserve a share of scolding, but they are lesser fish. And they would have no choice but to respond if Kerry steps up. He can show what he's made of. Sterner stuff, I'm hoping, but we'll see.

Want to lead, John? Then lead from the front, lead by example. Hell, I already done the hard part, I told you how! Show us you deserve to lead, and I expect that, when the time comes, we can probably find a dollar or two to help you out.

[Zoe]

Keep in mind that the money was donated to him with the hope that he would be the one to use it. He has the right to hang on for a while.

Is there really that much that could be done on a state basis by the time the money is transferred these last two weeks?

Anyone have recent poll stats for Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia for the Senate?

[Fear Itself]

Anyone have recent poll stats for Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia for the Senate?Today's polls were from Virginia and Rhode Island (http://www.electoral-vote.com/):We have two Senate polls today, both in key states. In Virginia, incumbent Sen.George Allen (R-VA) seems to have extracted himself from the macaca he stepped in earlier and continues to have a small lead over former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D), 47% to 43%, according to Mason-Dixon.

In Rhode Island, Rasmussen has Sheldon Whitehouse (D) ahead of incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) by 52% to 44%. Chafee has trailed all year.

[elucidator]

I am pleased to report that the force of my disapproval has moved Sen. Kerry to respond appropriately, chipping in a further half-million bucks. Please be assured that this public demonstration of my awesome political influence will not bloat my self-esteem in some unseemly fashion, I remain the same humble and modest correspondent. Difficult as that may be in moments of triumph. Such as this.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Keep in mind that the money was donated to him with the hope that he would be the one to use it. He has the right to hang on for a while.

Is there really that much that could be done on a state basis by the time the money is transferred these last two weeks?

Anyone have recent poll stats for Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia for the Senate?

You could always run more commercials.

[John Mace]

Dirty filthy Congressmans. They wants the precious, but it's mine. It's mine, I tell you, it's mine!!

[ElvisL1ves]

Please be assured that this public demonstration of my awesome political influence will not bloat my self-esteem in some unseemly fashion.I am confident you will use your powers only for good.

[Contrapuntal]

'luci is right. The dems need to do whatever it takes that is consistent with their stated principles to take control of this country. The hour is now. Let's rally 'round the flag, boys.

[John Carter of Mars]

Don't like what we're hearing, John. Long time fan, myself, but you got me scratching my head wondering WTF? Hearing stuff about how you and some others in the "centrist" wing are sitting on piles of cash, stockpiling for later political moves. <snip>


Well, GollyGee. Seems like it was only yesterday that Kerry was selling out his comrades in arms to further his personal political ambitions. Now he's selling out his fellow party members to further his personal political ambitions and you're surprised?

That's one leopard the sure didn't change his spots.

[elucidator]

You mean back when The Leader was bravely defending the skies over Amarillo from the Viet Cong Air Force?

[John Mace]

What about Hillary? Doesn't she have a few bucks of her own? Of course, she does have defend that Senate seat against... who?

But I agree with the OP. The Dems need to pull out the stops, and now.

[elucidator]

Sic 'em!

[Martin Hyde]

You know, as a Republican, there has been a few times I've genuinely said, " Wow, my party isn't too hot at the moment." The Clinton impeachment was one of those times.

This, isn't one of those times. I'm pretty happy across the board with the current Congress and President. When I see a rambling rant from a Democrat who quite possibly is mentally ill or if not extremely weird and mentally deficient in some manner and then see his Democrat buddies pat him on the back after he's actually been ludicrous enough to categorize the opposition as "the forces of darkness" it really convinces me of how right I am to be a Republican. It also serves as a poignant reminder to me as to exactly why it is Democrats are so terrible when it comes to winning elections, they've genuinely gone off the "deep end" so to speak, in recent years. There was a time when a rant like elucidator's would be regarded as extremely over-the-top, use of terms like "the forces of darkness" would be ridiculed by persons on both sides of the aisle who were remotely serious about politics. However we've actually reached the point where behavior like that is no longer ridiculed by accepted and encouraged.

[Fear Itself]

I'm pretty happy across the board with the current Congress and President. I can see the support for the President if you are a card carrying member of his base, but if you are happy with Congress, that puts you in pretty rare company. In the latest Reuters/Zogby poll (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25392208.htm), only 23 percent of the population agreed with you on that. Which makes me wonder if you consider yourself a conservative, how can you feel happy about federal spending by the current Republican Congress? Happy with their action on immigration? Happy with their Social Security legislation? What specifically are you happy with that has come out of Congress recently? Terry Schiavo?

[John Mace]

I can see the support for the President if you are a card carrying member of his base, but if you are happy with Congress, that puts you in pretty rare company. In the latest Reuters/Zogby poll (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25392208.htm), only 23 percent of the population agreed with you on that. Which makes me wonder if you consider yourself a conservative, how can you feel happy about federal spending by the current Republican Congress? Happy with their action on immigration? Happy with their Social Security legislation? What specifically are you happy with that has come out of Congress recently? Terry Schiavo?
You know, Fear, I rarely agree with you, but in this case I agree 100%. Martin, can you tell us what you like so much about the current state of affiars?

[Martin Hyde]

You know, Fear, I rarely agree with you, but in this case I agree 100%. Martin, can you tell us what you like so much about the current state of affiars?

I should clarify.

During any given congressional session an enormous amount of legislative work is done. No, I am not claiming I uniformly agree with every bill passed, nor do I even claim to be aware of every bill passed and the specifics of said bills.

The current state of affairs (some of these attributable to the President, some to the Congress, some to both):

-An ever improving economy
-Lower income tax, lower capital gains tax
-I approved of the March, 2006 USAPATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
-I approve of the continuing dialog and international consensus-building we've engaged in with regard to the North Korean issue
-I continue to support our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and feel that both military missions continue to remain important and that we're currently doing fairly well
-I approved the Military Commissions Act and feel it has put in place a system to equitably and judicially deal with a host of issues we've dealt with rather badly relating to classes of captured enemy combatants for which a traditional framework did not exist in regards to dealing with said combatants
-I approved the Pension Protection Act of 2006

Throughout the span of his Presidency I've also supported:

-Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
-Bankruptcy Reform Act
-Unborn Victim's of Violence Act
-The free trade agreements signed with: Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Morocco, Australia, Dominican Republic, and Bahrain.
-Withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol (never ratified by the Senate)

I actually question the reasoning behind the low approval ratings for Congress. I have a strong suspicion it is because the Congress has always been judged harshly and in a negative light by the country at large. I also suspect it is because of things like the Tom DeLay indictment and the Mark Foley resignation, two things that were both dealt with and were incidents involving 2 of 435 elected officials and to judge the entire Congress based on their behavior is foolish.

I also suspect the overreaction to deaths in Iraq and current troubles in Afghanistan has earned the Congress some negativity, demonstrating the misunderstanding most Americans have about how our government is run--otherwise they would recognize such military events are not the responsibility or result of anything Congress does.

[elucidator]

Gee whiz, Hydee, don't screw up my stuff, ok? Its not "forces of darkness" it's "Forces of Darkness", it's capitalized for a reason, to suggest mockery and derision at faux dignity, a backhanded honorific. Yoiu feel compelled to kill a joke, as so many are, you don't have to dress it out, no joke is improved by autopsy. I mean, you say "Richard Perle, prince of darkness" it just doesn't make it. You do see that, don't you? Am I typing too fast?

Like when I used to say "Tom DeLay (R-Undead)" before his karma started catching up with him, I didn't really mean that Tom Delay rises at night to feast on the blood of the living! It would be wrong to judge by appearances.

As to being "pretty happy with the current Congress and President"...I am reminded that we have yet to pick a poster child for the 2006 Mother's March Against Cognitive Dissonance, and wonder if you have a recent photo? Its for a good cause, and we are as non-partisan as present circumstances permit.

[John Carter of Mars]

You mean back when The Leader was bravely defending the skies over Amarillo from the Viet Cong Air Force?

This thread has got fuck-nothin' to do with The Leader. Run Kerry again, I'll be pleased to vote against him again, no matter who the opposition is.

[Martin Hyde]

Gee whiz, Hydee, don't screw up my stuff, ok? Its not "forces of darkness" it's "Forces of Darkness", it's capitalized for a reason, to suggest mockery and derision at faux dignity, a backhanded honorific. Yoiu feel compelled to kill a joke, as so many are, you don't have to dress it out, no joke is improved by autopsy. I mean, you say "Richard Perle, prince of darkness" it just doesn't make it. You do see that, don't you? Am I typing too fast?

Like when I used to say "Tom DeLay (R-Undead)" before his karma started catching up with him, I didn't really mean that Tom Delay rises at night to feast on the blood of the living! It would be wrong to judge by appearances.

As to being "pretty happy with the current Congress and President"...I am reminded that we have yet to pick a poster child for the 2006 Mother's March Against Cognitive Dissonance, and wonder if you have a recent photo? Its for a good cause, and we are as non-partisan as present circumstances permit.

Elaborated idiocy is idiocy nonetheless, no matter how much you try to spin your stupidity as some sort of charming humorous quality.

[Fear Itself]

I should clarify.I won't argue the individual merits of the legislation you approve of, but I still find it amazing that, on balance, you found more to approve of than to disapprove. I should think the record pork barrel spending (something you righties always beat up Democrats mercilessly over) would wipe out the good will generated by half the legislation you listed. Or is fiscal conservatism waning as a guiding principal of the Republican party?

[Martin Hyde]

I won't argue the individual merits of the legislation you approve of, but I still find it amazing that, on balance, you found more to approve of than to disapprove. I should think the record pork barrel spending (something you righties always beat up Democrats mercilessly over) would wipe out the good will generated by half the legislation you listed. Or is fiscal conservatism waning as a guiding principal of the Republican party?

Pork barrel spending is one issue. The deficit isn't really that bad in comparison to the size of the economy as a whole, relatively speaking we've had much higher deficits in the past. We're also fighting two wars that I happen to agree we need to be fighting, and I'm a pragmatist who knows wars cost money. Sans Iraq and Afghanistan I'd be a lot more upset about our current budgetary issues, but I recognize that you cannot conduct large scale military operations and still stay in the black, they are just too expensive.

Pork barrel spending on the other hand is something that goes to the heart of the political system, it's something that's been around for a very long time, is probably sometimes maligned more than it should be, and is perpetrated by just about any Congressman worth his salt on both sides of the aisle. One of the most prominent providers of pork is Ted Stevens who is a Republican, but Robert Byrd is also one of the big movers of pork and he's a staunch Democrat.

To a large degree representatives are expected to work in the interests of their constituency. The public tends to like representatives who get things for them. They take notice of the Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Laboratory or the Ted Stevens Community Center.

Sometimes "pork" spending goes to things that really aren't bad (the Cancer Research Center is real that I mentioned above), sometimes they are absolutely indefensible and are clearly just an effort by the politician involved to run back home with the biggest sack of money they can manage. Ted Stevens has infamously had several bridges constructed that were not necessary to improve the transportation infrastructure of the areas in question.

I think it is telling that the biggest Republican pork mover is the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the biggest Democrat pork mover is the ranking Democrat on that Committee and its Chairman anytime the Democrats control the Senate. The two men with the greatest power to generate pork use that power to the utmost, and both of them are in fact good friends who help one another out when it comes to creating pork. Byrd and Stevens are the most prominent examples but pork is something that is basically culturally part of the Congress. Congressmen all want to get it because it helps them get elected, and hell some of it genuinely improves the constituents lives, which is sort of why they're in Congress--ostensibly. Congressmen will often support other congressmen in making pork even if they are a member of the other party or have ideological differences, because standard congressional etiquette is if someone helps out one of your pork projects you're going to do the same for them sometime down the road.

For example this quote, "The Democratic Party…has periodically inveighed against the extravagance of the present administration, but its representatives in the Legislature have exercised no critical surveillance over their appropriations. They have preferred to take for their own constituencies whatever could be got out of the Congressional 'pork barrel" is from 1909, this has been the situation for a very long time. The only way we're going to fix pork barrel spending is with some sort of change in House & Senate rules which make it harder to attach riders and earmarks to bills or perhaps even a constitutional amendment (in fact one has been proposed--and by a Republican.) And some of the most prominent critics of rampant pork barrel spending are Republicans.

Unfortunately I imagine that even Tom Coburn and John McCain have sent gravy trains back to their home state, and it's always going to be questionable what is a really a justified, appropriate spending of Federal funds that a zealous representative has secured for his constituents and what is a poor use of fund being diverted back home for purely political reasons.

I also wonder if we really have record levels of pork-barrel spending if adjusted for inflation, or in relative terms to the budget itself or the current GDP. If anyone has any figures I'd be appreciative.

[Fear Itself]

I also wonder if we really have record levels of pork-barrel spending if adjusted for inflation, or in relative terms to the budget itself or the current GDP. If anyone has any figures I'd be appreciative.Earmarks have been growing steadily in the last two decades, but have really exploded in the last six years:In 1987, the transportation reauthorization bill included 152 earmarks, and President Reagan vetoed it, in part because he considered that too many. In last year's bill, there were 6,371, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog.

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/504213.htmlWhen Taxpayers for Common Sense analyzed the most recent House transportation bill, we found a staggering 4,128 earmarks worth more than $12.4 billion. Based on the size of the House proposal, earmarks would make up seven percent of the total bill. By contrast, fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills, which were themselves plenty full of earmarks, contained only 4.3 percent earmarks. This puts the transportation earmarks out of line with even the well-earmarked appropriations bills. The fact is, earmarking on Capitol Hill has exploded in recent years, and the transportation bill is no exception. Just one year ago, the House's bill contained 3,251 earmarks worth about $10.8 billion. In 1991, that number was about $6 billion.

http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/briefingremarks.htm

[furlibusea]

John Carter of Mars, I do not believe you get to make a statement like this:
:

Well, GollyGee. Seems like it was only yesterday that Kerry was selling out his comrades in arms to further his personal political ambitions. Now he's selling out his fellow party members to further his personal political ambitions and you're surprised?

That's one leopard the sure didn't change his spots.

Then act all supprised and offended when you are answered with this
You mean back when The Leader was bravely defending the skies over Amarillo from the Viet Cong Air Force?

This thread has got fuck-nothin' to do with The Leader. Run Kerry again, I'll be pleased to vote against him again, no matter who the opposition is.

You started it. Your crack was bullshit, and you brought it on yourself.

[Damuri Ajashi]

We're also fighting two wars that I happen to agree we need to be fighting, and I'm a pragmatist who knows wars cost money. Sans Iraq and Afghanistan I'd be a lot more upset about our current budgetary issues, but I recognize that you cannot conduct large scale military operations and still stay in the black, they are just too expensive.
I don't believe that it is standard practice to cut taxes during times of war exactly because there is a recognition that wars cost money.
Sometimes "pork" spending ...
The energy bill and the transportation bill were packed with more than the usual amount of pork.

[John Carter of Mars]

John Carter of Mars, I do not believe you get to make a statement like this......
You started it. Your crack was bullshit, and you brought it on yourself.

My "crack" was a comment on the traitorous history of John Kerry; a trait that is still with him today, except now with regard his fellow party members.
It seems that no matter what, it's impossible to have a political discussion without someone chiming in with "Yes but Bush...". Is Bush now such a paragon that he is the standard by which all others should be judged? (shudder)

[elucidator]

Yeah, heard about that, Kerry's a traitor. So what do you think, he was an agent of the Comintern? Or maybe Mossad? Or was he merely the slave of seductive corruption by Joan Baez and Jane Fonda?