John Kerry solidifies his status as a Lost Kos.

It seems that the honorable 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, is now writing on The Daily Kos. While any idiot anybody can create an account on The Daily Kos, the person styling himself John Kerry has actually posted two articles. Since being able to do that would require a log in and permission from site owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, I am assuming that the John Kerry posting on Kos is the “real” John Kerry.

That further assumes, of course, that there is a real John Kerry! :) After the 2004 campaign, I’d suggest that there is some doubt about that!

But this does raise the interesting question of why Mr. Kerry would do that. The Daily Kos is a very popular site, receiving hundreds of thousands of visitors every day. Right now, the site is #3 on the TTLB Ecosystem, with a Link Score of 2357 (one of which comes from this site) and 584,154 average daily visits.

But The Lost Kos is not only the highest rated site on the American political left, it is also the home for the weirdos and whackos of the left. I check teh site because of its popularity, and I’ve found some interesting starting points for articles therein, but it isn’t a place for reasoned political debates. The Lost Kos is the home of the flamers, the people more interested in being the Pickett’s Charge of the left than actually figuring out how to persuade the doubters and win elections.

My guess is that Mr. Kerry is trying for the same net-based early money raising grab that was so successful for Howard Dean in 2003. And I think that’s a large part of the theme of Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics that Mr. Zúniga coauthored and hawks on his site.

I’d actually like to read, and review, that book, but since the order form says, “We’ll donate $1 per book to progressive organizations fighting the radical right,” I’m not certain that I can buy the book with a clear conscience.

Perhaps Senator Kerry thinks he can endear himself to the far left this way; other than that, this seems like a strange move for a politician who wishes to be seen as responsible or shed enough of his most-liberal-member-of-the-Senate label to be able to win the general election.


  1. Kerry is trusting in political inertia. For most people, party affiliation is more congenital than a product of analysis. In urban jurisdictions where one party (the one starting with a D) rule is a basic fact of life, the proper affiliation is essential to gain some scrap of patronage and this can include a city job that can include something as apolitical as a sanitation worker.

    The folks who think for themselves are the ones who switch parties out of principle and they tend to become activists.

    There are some who can remember when the Big Tent of the Democrats included southern conservatives as well as Liberals. Republicans tended to be rustics and crusty New Englanders as well as the board room/country club set. Democrats had a natural advantage. The Goldwater Revolution ended all of that. While considered a debacle by many pundits, it led to the Reagan Era and the end of the Solid South. Much of the black electorate was hooked on handouts and maintained a loyalty to their pushers.

    While conservative Democrats were able to oblige FDR to dump the radical Wallace as his VP, the radicalization of the party was underway. Truman had alienated the radicals and seemed too soft to the more conservatives and faded from the scene. Party bosses (including many with mob ties) insulted the electorate by dumping the choice of primary voters and foisting a New Deal hack on the faithful. He proved to be a loser. JFK came off as as more conservative than Nixon and squeaked through to victory with a bit of help from friends in low places. LBJ used the bloody shirt and intellectual dishonesty to beat Goldwater, the man who beat a party establishment that would never forgive his heresy. Humphrey could not steal enough votes to beat Nixon but the radicalization of the party was assured by the McGovern rules. Carter showed that a Southern accent could mask a left-of center and confused ideology and was soon dumped by the voters. Many Reagan Democrats never changed their affiliation so their nominal party still appears formidable on paper.

    Kerry is the darling of the Limousine Liberals, Sailboat Socialists, and Media Moguls. These are the New Aristocrats who believe that they should run the country and guide the peasants into a not so brave new world. They live in hermetic isolation and speak only to their kind and their household gods.

    Why expect Kerry to escape his self-imposed isolation from reality?

  2. Ha, Limosine Liberals. Bush came from such a poverty ridden background. He made it up the ranks on his own determination. LOL
    He’s still emotionally in junior high school and (God save us) we’ve
    given him the most powerful operation on the planet, the US military.
    Just like a little kid, he makes messes everywhere he goes. He doesn’t know what real warfare is. He has no regard for life. He is the ugliest blood stain to ever come upon this US of A. He’s a frat brat. You’re an accomplice to crimes of humanity by supporting him. You have no soul. Mindless compliance. He is dangerous, and so is your ignorance. Take off the tunnel vision glasses and try reading something besides the MIC publications.

  3. Oh, George Bush had help, no doubt about that. He had a famous name and money with which to get started.

    But he still had to go out and compete. He defeated a popular incumbent Democrat for the Texas gubernatorial seat, in a state that, at the time, was still controlled by the dying, almost extinct breed, Democratus conservatus. He then had to defeat several challengers for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.

    Blu, the people elected George W Bush. Democrats like to whine about the unusual outcome of the 2000 election, but the fact is that, after four years in office, a solid majority of the American people decided to retain President Bush for another term.

  4. Dana, you are oblivious to the whole shenanigan operation the “elections” both 2000, and 2004 contained. The very fact that your sad state of ignorance of all the documentation of fraud, makes apparent the corporate/media/government operation’s success at keeping the masses ignorant. In fascism, the arts and intellectuals are disdained. I don’t claim to be an intellectual, but I do read a variety of things. The MSM comes at us, and it’s heard through all outlets anyway. Even on Air America, they were using CNN. They might be using the Associated Press now. It’s hard not to get the MSM. C-SPAN is a good source of information. Go there and watch the John Conyers hearing on the theft of the election. There’s plenty of data. Interestingly, virtually all fraud favored Bush. This administration-criminals, all of em.

  5. Blu:

    I’m not oblivious to the alleged shenanigans; what I am oblivious to is the proven fraud, oblivious because there isn’t any.

    The 2000 election was the most investigated in history. The left doesn’t like the outcome, because Florida was so painfully close, and the Electoral College winner and the plurality winner were not the same. Had John Kerry carried Ohio in 2004, he’d have been a minority president, and the left wouldn’t have objected in the least.

  6. I’ve spent some time looking at The Brad Blog, another left-wing site, which seems to spend a lot of time on the 2004 election and how it was “stolen.” If I were to believe Brad, I’d have to believe that the exit polls were right and the vote count was wrong!

    Trouble with that theory is that all of the pre-election polls, taken the Sunday and Monday immediately prior to the election, with one exception, predicted (within the margin of error) the eventual result: 51% for George Bush and 48% for John Kerry. Only one poll actually predicted a Kerry victory, and even there, the actual result was within its margin of error.

    The exit polls were conducted by a new outfit; the old Voter News Service had closed up shop. Here you had thousands of workers, most of which fit a rather narrow age demographic, working for a polling outfit with very little experience; are we to believe that the professionals like Gallup and Harris and Rasmussen all got it wrong, and a new outfit, with marginally trained people, got it right?

  7. The hypocrisy of so-called Liberals is stunning. They bash GWB for his privileged background, see above, but neglect to mention John Kerry’s mega millions, or Ted Kennedy’s trust fund, or Howard Dean’s big fat fortune.

    No, the Bush Bashing is a one way street, and the bright light of self awareness never shines in the dark and closed recesses of the liberal mind. Ever wonder why?

    Back in the late 70’s when mental institutions “mainstreamed” the inmate populations most went on SSI or welfare, others took up left-wing politics.

  8. Black Jack,
    Hey, I’m not bashing Bush’s priviledged upbringing. I’m countering the right wing phrase: Limosine Liberals.

    Where did you get your rattle on inmate populations? Hey, if people have sufficient time to read, then, so, they had the opportunity to learn the truth.

    Bush has proven to be so despicably dishonest, and having immense power, from him multiple capitalist pay offs, I don’t believe it. The 2004 election was so blatently ripped off, then the corporate/media “substantiating” it, LOL, shows how much dishonesy and back scratching is going on. Bush has proven throughout the past five years that lying is the same as speaking for him. W stands for Weasel.

  9. Blu, conservatives are supposed to ride in limosines! We’re the greedy capitalist exploiters, remember? It’s when the Friends of the People, the Champions of the Little Guys do it that it’s hypocrisy. :)

  10. You guys are the ones demonizing wealthy upbringing, using the term: Limosine Liberals. Every one that achieves wealth is not a scoundrel, but Bush, well, you know how I feel about him.

    AGAIN, I was acknowledging your phrase as some kind of detriment. Limosine Liberals….bad. Run down whatever…..good. I’m not categorizing people by whether or not they have money. You were. I’m pointing out that your own critcical gauge of “measuring” it you fail your own “test standards” foolish as it is.

    My observing Bush’s wealth is merely pointing out your hypocritical, and minimal observation, only seeing what you want to see.
    Big deal that Bush having lied us into a war that has killed tens of thousands, though, huh? That is something you ignore.

  11. Dana, your lack of awareness of the massive voter fraud all favoring Bush is once again, an example of the right wing media control. The majority of right wing MSM outlets keep enough people ignorant to hold their voting base reasonabaly intact. Although, there’s an abundance of Conservatives understandably so abandoning the obvious criminal right wing. They would be the ones that haven’t abandoned all independent thought. They left blind compliance to the Pubs’ party, otherwise known as the Repugnant, or Roboticans. On C-SPAN, you will find the 3 hour hearing of the massive voter fraud that occured in Ohio. There was more in other states as well, but this hearing only covers the Ohio sleaze ball tactics of the Pubs. I know you won’t go to C-SPAN and check it out, because you all prefer ignorance.

  12. I quote: The very fact that your sad state of ignorance of all the documentation of fraud, makes apparent the corporate/media/government operation’s success at keeping the masses ignorant. :

    The only folks who can steal votes on a wholseale basis are Democrats and they have been doing for decades. You have to go back to the 1920s when Al Capone was in bed with some Republicans.

    Vote fraud is only possible in urban areas with one party rule and the game requires a dormant minority party. The game is very simple: register some machine loyalists as faux Republicans and let them work behind the desk at the polls. Create a reservoir of names and have machine hirelings vote every hour on the hour under a different name. The giveaway is a huge turnout in certain precincts. In a rush job, you may find voter authorization cards signed in alphabetical order and in the same handwriting. I’ve done the investigating (Baltimore, 1994) and know how the game is played. Such tricks (in Illinois, Texas, and Missouri) got JFK elected.

    Similar tricks were played in recent elections in Philadelphia and East St. Louis. Note that some Dem activist just plea-bargained their way out of felony counts for vandalizing GOP-rented vans during the last election in Wisconsin.

  13. Blu wrote:

    Dana, your lack of awareness of the massive voter fraud all favoring Bush is once again, an example of the right wing media control. The majority of right wing MSM outlets keep enough people ignorant to hold their voting base reasonabaly intact.

    Now, why would the mainstream media do that? The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times all endorsed Senator Kerry; why would they deliberately hide information that would prove he really won but was cheated by the evil ol’ GOP? CBS News ruined its reputation by trying to use forged documents to discredit President Bush; why would they balk at using a true story to do so?

    Watergate made the reputations of two reporters on the Washington city beat; Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are now millionaires, and Mr Woodward is a best selling author in huge demand; why would all of the intrepid reporters and editors ignore a story that is every bit as big as Watergate, at the cost of their own financial well-being and lost chances to really pump up their careers, to cover up a story like this, if the story were actually true?

    I followed the link you e-mailed me yesterday, and was unimpressed. It was the same stuff I’ve seen before on The Brad Blog: a hyped up claim that the 2004 election was stolen, accompanied by a whine that no one would believe him. When I think of how many people would like to believe that, and the guy still can’t get any press, I have to ask myself (again): why would all of those people, all with plenty of incentive (personal and professional) to expose this, keep it under wraps if there were any truth to it?

    Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, there isn’t any truth to it?

  14. Comments at the Lost Kos have John Kerry calling for a filibuster. But, it isn’t all love and kisses. The wackos know it’s too little too late, and that Old Magic Hat is only going through the motions to placate the Moonbat wingers. It is funny to watch though.

  15. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » The Alito Confirmation: Part 11

  16. Pingback: “Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito”

  17. Pingback: Personality - D Info

  18. Dana: , I have to ask myself (again): why would all of those people, all with plenty of incentive (personal and professional) to expose this, keep it under wraps if there were any truth to it?

    Embarassment? I’ve noticed that despite the fact that we now know Al Gore won the election in 2000, gaining the majority of the vote in Florida, if only all the votes had been counted in accordance with Florida electoral law (and the whole idea of a full count was what the Republicans, you notice, fought both legally and illegally at the time). We know this: it’s a confirmed fact, not just a near-certainty as with the 2004 Presidential election.

    Yet many, many Americans – not all of them Republicans – are extremely reluctant to acknowledge that the 2000 election was stolen: Al Gore was the clear winner.

    Once a story is established – the notion that the US still has fair and honest elections, that Bush won in 2000 – it becomes very difficult to buck the trend. Who wants to be the first mainstream outlet to say what’s factual but extremely controversial: George W. Bush was never elected President in 2000? No mainstream commenter that I can think of: and it’s even more controversial to say publicly that the honesty of the 2004 elections is thrown into extreme doubt by the ease of rigging electronic voting machines and the reliable exit polls showing that Kerry won.

    Al Gore’s victory over Bush in 2000 was publicly stated only in non-US news media in October 2001. All the US news sources fudged around it and pretended that somehow the data showed that Bush “really had” won. It seems very odd to me that, only a month after the worst terrorist attack on US soil happened in Bush’s watch, the US news media didn’t take the clear chance they were given to point out that Bush was never legitimately elected: that the President who had failed to keep the US people safe was also not the President the US people had chosen, in November 2000. Yet, so it was.

Comments are closed.