Posted on 06/20/2006 7:53:50 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
When Senator John Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war.
Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.
As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting on Wednesday about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, the Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of this year but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal. Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.
In drawing up a schedule for the Wednesday session, the Democratic leadership has arranged for its plan to be debated first, pushing Mr. Kerry and his proposal into the evening, too late for the nightly television news, to starve it of some attention.
Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
lol! flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop
Kerry can't be trusted. Even the dems are starting to realize that.
I don't know why Democrats are so worried. At some point he'll agree with everybody at least once.
The Thing that won't go away ...
This is the guy who served in Vietnam, right?
Jacques Al-Qerry will be against a timetable by this time tomorrow..
When JF'nK was campaigning, he couldn't be pinned down because he needed to be in charge so he could get good info on what was happening on the ground.
Now, he has no better access to info, yet he now has a plan.
Too cautious, that's just hilarious.
I can see a caricature of Kerry as Admiral Perry. He would be quoted as saying,
"Dump the torpedoes, full speed in reverse."
You'll notice that they don't actually disagree with him. They're just mad at him because he's too open about it, and it complicates the campaign PR.
As others have said, Dems have to lie to get elected.
Bahahahaha!!! What a load. They have nobody to blame but themselves. He was their choice in the primaries and supposedly, the best they had running. Now they're going to say....."Well...we didn't like him, anyway."
Forget Kerry's flip-flopping. He's irrelevant, now. Just look how disingenous the whole party and their house organ (NYT) really are. They're the do-anything, say-anything to get in power gang....and they're transparent while doing it. This is why they are doomed to fail once again in 2006.
"Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front."
Would be nice if the Republicans would show a united front, particularly on immigration.
LOL! These guys are a riot!
Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date, for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.
So let me get this straight - running away more slowly is cowardly. Hahahaha!
That article was widely dissected and ridiculed for the credulous and incompetent way that Zernike presented as 'fact' a wide range of charges for which the only backup was that Kerry told her that he had a squad of expert researchers who had proven them, and the proof would be forthcoming 'soon'. Oh, and he also had that hat that a CIA or Special Forces guy gave him in Cambodia.
What was the last piece of legislation Kerry authored? Aside from pompous condescension, just what has he done in the Senate in the last 5 years? 10 years?
"This is the guy who served in Vietnam, right?"
Uhhhh ... if memory serves me this is the guy who wrote his own awards reports and was in VietNam for a few months back in the 60s' ... something about him working with the CIA and doing a Cambodian run over Christmas when Nixon was President - oops - before Nixon was Pres.
Ahhhh it's getting all foggy now but "served"? I would question the definition of "served" in his case.
BB RVN 66-70 MACV
Is this THE John Kerry? you know.. the one who served in Vietnam?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.