John Kerry thwarted critics today who tried to smear him with a thirty-year-old picture of his attending an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda by saying, “Wait a minute, that’s not me. That’s the British guy who played the annoying next door neighbor on “The Jeffersons.”
PAD
• 
BWHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know you getting old when you understand a joke related to a seventies sit-com…oy 🙂
The who?
So I don’t understand. He served his time, got a lot of medals…but when he got out he went to a rally against the war and people find that wrong? He was there! Shouldn’t he have some thoughts on the subject? SHeesh
Ðámņ…I just GOTTA agree with KGS on this one. LOL.
Kerry should be more concerned
about this story.
Drudge is, for the most part, pretty trustworthy. Though, stuff like this didn’t seem to affect Clinton too much. Though I wonder if liberals would be so willing to over look another president with an infidelity problem and this could be what Clark, Edwards, and even Dean need to jump ahead.
Even that long ago I can’t imagine Kerry looking like Mr. Bentley
As long as Kerry’s wife doesn’t care, so what…
PAD: Without even looking at the link, I got your reference and laughed out loud. Just how much does this date me?
BTW, I doubt the Republicans would be stupid enough to try to smear Kerry’s service for this country. It would backfire horribly. I have conservative friends who claim they would not vote for Bush if he crossed that line.
As long as Kerry’s wife doesn’t care, so what…
Ah, but Bladestar, right or wrong many people do care.
“[the]Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time — it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice — their conclusion that it wasn’t bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn’t risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton’s personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time — and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it.'” – CONRESSIONAL QUARTERLY’S CRAIG CRAWFORD
If they can handle it then great for the Kerry camp. Like I said, though, this infidelity story might be what Clark, Edwards, and Dean need to pull the front runner down.
Drudge is, for the most part, pretty trustworthy.
I don’t think “trustworthy” is a word that should go anywhere near Matt Drudge, unless it brings its buddy “un” along. The guy’s as much a partisan shill as Limbaugh, and watch him day to day and you can pretty much guess who the biggest threat to Bush is according to how much Drudge is going after them.
Which isn’t to say he’s wrong about this particular item. We’ll see.
I doubt the Republicans would be stupid enough to try to smear Kerry’s service for this country.
choke
They will and they are. I’ve been tracing some of this stuff on my own blog (which my name is linked to above) and there’s a lot of such activity going on.
Besides, they did it to McCain and Cleland.
Personally, I don’t care who Kerry screws as long as it’s not the American people as a whole.
PAD
Drudge is, for the most part, pretty trustworthy
First time I’ve ever read any of the Drudge Report. Made me think of something J. Jonah Jameson would print. My impression was that Drudge had been shown to be the sort of reporter who frequently take things out of context to support his preference for making the subject look bad. Really gets that gossip column feeling down though.
Amen PAD.
And besides, if Kerry’s wife doesn’t care who he’s having sex with, it’s really nobody’s business. Notice that this stance assumes his wife knows about it.
If the woman he married doesn’t care, why should you?
Anyone who knows anything about photography and lenses can tell — from the focus and the foreshortening — that Kerry is a good ten to fifteen meters behind Fonda in this pic. They aren’t ‘together’ and it’s a wild coincidence that they’re in the same shot at all.
In that large of a crowd, it is far more likely that the two did not meet, did not hang out together. This is a red herring, released to draw attention away from Flyboy George and his questionable service.
Speaking of…if the best he can come up with is “I received an honorable discharge” as a defense, then that’s sad. All that literally means is that Bush DIDN’T get convicted of a felony under the UCMJ. Nothing about him winning medals or getting promoted above Lieutenant, and nothing about how many Flight Hours he logged… Now THAT is one piece of data that should be available. All pilots, no matter what they’re flying, know exactly how many Flight Hours they’ve logged. It’s telling that Bush ain’t giving out that tidbit of info…
…and it’s equally telling that the stupid journalists — who never served in the military — don’t know to ask that question.
James Tichy: Drudge is, for the most part, pretty trustworthy.
My best response to this is to quote from above:
BWHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drudge is and always has been very sensationalistic, especially when it comes to things that make Democrats look bad.
But the thing is, if the public reaction to zippergate is any indication, most Americans simply do not care about a politician’s personal failings. They don’t condone the behavior, but they are more interested in how the candidate will govern the country than how he handles his marriage. That’s not to say that it won’t become an issue, as anything is fair in politics and the media loves fresh dirt.
As for Kerry’s military background, I expect that when (note: Not “if”) the Republicans start really attacking Kerry’s service record, it will end up doing more harm to Bush than good, as it will continue to raise those questions about the missing months in his service record
If they can handle it then great for the Kerry camp. Like I said, though, this infidelity story might be what Clark, Edwards, and Dean need to pull the front runner down.
Well, Clark can’t be the front-runner anymore because he’s out of the race:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/12/clark_calls_it_quits_on_fabulous_endeavor/
And Edwards is running a positive race and has stayed away from any negative campaigning tactics.
I doubt Dean or any candidate would sink that low considering if they don’t win they have to back Kerry (well they don’t have to but they will).
Back to the original topic, I am really sick of “uncovering” 30-year-old information about candidates. Quayle’s record did not concern me, nor did Clinton’s nor does Bush’s or Kerry’s. Being 36 years old, I don’t want to hold up some of my choices from when I was 21 to very much scrutiny. Bush and Kerry have 30 years more experience for any of this to matter.
There are real issues to discuss/debate: the economy, the rising costs of entitlements, the war in Iraq/on terror. All require much more real discussion in America than a protest picture or dental records from an air base.
IF Kerry did have relations with the intern, the best thing he could do would be to ‘come clean’ about it, not deny it and move on. What seemed to get WJ Clinton in so much hot watter was that he lied about the relationship under oath and directly to his cabinet and to the public.
PAD: Personally, I don’t care who Kerry screws as long as it’s not the American people as a whole.
Hear, hear. In fact, if it would keep him otherwise honest, I say we line the f*ckable interns outside the Lincoln bedroom and set him up with an unlimited, taxpayer-provided account at Washington’s premiere cathouse.
nekouken, now that’s a perk that would get more than just the usual gang of insider idiots to run for office.
Quayle’s record did not concern me, nor did Clinton’s nor does Bush’s or Kerry’s.
I agree with you about Quayle, Clinton and Kerry, but not Bush. And no, it’s not because I dislike Bush. Which I do, but that’s not why. When it was brought up during the initial campaign, it wasn’t remotely a major issue to me.
But the moment he started strutting around on the aircraft carrier in his flight suit, that to me brought a thirty year old story firmly into present day. If you’re going to start touting your military service to your country, then you dámņëd well better be prepared to back it up. If you can’t, it’s too late to whine about it when the press jumps on you.
Kerry, who wears a business suit, can back up his service. Bush, who wore a flight suit, apparently can’t. That’s a legit story.
PAD
IF Kerry did have relations with the intern, the best thing he could do would be to ‘come clean’ about it, not deny it and move on. What seemed to get WJ Clinton in so much hot watter was that he lied about the relationship under oath and directly to his cabinet and to the public.
Very true. And you can see it in the way he handled the Gennifer Flowers “bimbo eruption” in 1992 versus his finger wagging “I did not have sex with that woman” comment.
from the John Kerry website:
It’s never too early to change the world — women interns are our future!
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/women/campaign.html
I wonder if the rather silly “Bush AWOL” rumormongering was an attempt to grab the headlines away from this upcoming tempest.
I also wonder why the same reporters who claim that “off the record” statements are treated as some kind of holy sacrament were so willing to reveal that it was Wesley Clark who claimed that Kerry was about to implode over an intern.
But since Clark has shown himself to be a real conspiracy nut (actually, just a nut, period) we should wait and see how this all plays out.
(I seem to recall Teresa Heinz-kerry saying that if HER husband had done a Bill Clinton she would have blown him away with a gun…wow, this could end up being the MOST EXCITING ELECTION EVER!!!)
You have to remember that today is February 12.
Five years ago today the Republican-led Senate acquitted impeached President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
Ironic, eh?
But the moment he started strutting around on the aircraft carrier in his flight suit, that to me brought a thirty year old story firmly into present day.
I considered that showboating – which always has the potential to backfire.
Kerry, who wears a business suit, can back up his service. Bush, who wore a flight suit, apparently can’t. That’s a legit story.
The records I’ve seen are pretty plain that he did service, was paid, had dental work done and received an Honorable Discharge. I do think there is more to the story, but again I come back to that these were decisions he made at 21. At 40 he made some serious, life-changing choices about his self-abuse and has led a different life. He’s never been shy about the fact that he has dirty laundry, but (so far) he hasn’t had to share it all. I’m still willing to give the benefit of the doubt on it since it all happened so long ago and has gotten much of his act together. An alcoholic stopping cold turkey gives someone a “+”, IMHO.
Den:
As for Kerry’s military background, I expect that when (note: Not “if”) the Republicans start really attacking Kerry’s service record, it will end up doing more harm to Bush than good, as it will continue to raise those questions about the missing months in his service record …
That day would be yesterday. The following was posed by Jack Kelly at Jewish World Review 2/11/04.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/jkelly.html
excerpt:
Kerry served on swift boats for about four months. During that time, he was awarded the Bronze Star (the lowest decoration for heroism in combat) and the Silver Star (the next higher decoration for valor) and three Purple Hearts for wounds sustained in battle. These latter decorations — like my title of “nationally syndicated columnist” — sound more impressive than they are. All three wounds were minor cuts from shrapnel, which, according to Kerry, caused him to miss a grand total of 2 days of duty.
….
This is the action on Feb. 28, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star: A Viet Cong fired a B-40 rocket at Kerry’s boat, Patrol Craft Fast-94. Tom Belodeau, manning the twin 50-caliber machine guns at the rear of the boat, opened fire on the VC, wounding him. The VC fled behind a hooch. Kerry ordered PCF-94 to shore, leaped out of the boat, pursued the VC, and finished him off.
….
Kerry had an advantage most servicemen do not. Medal recommendations have to be made by the commanding officer of the unit in which the heroism took place. Kerry was the commander of PCF-94. Presumably, Kerry’s medal recommendation was made by the commander of the squadron to which PCF-94 belonged. But Kerry’s commander wasn’t there. The evidence he had of the heroism of Lt (jg) John F. Kerry came chiefly from the after action report of Lt. (jg) John F. Kerry.
PAD:
Kerry, who wears a business suit, can back up his service. Bush, who wore a flight suit, apparently can’t. That’s a legit story. …
Bush has released his National Guard records, even his dental records. What more does he have to answer? He served a lot more than the previous occupant of the White House. (or me)
The records I’ve seen are pretty plain that he did service, was paid, had dental work done and received an Honorable Discharge. I do think there is more to the story, but again I come back to that these were decisions he made at 21. At 40 he made some serious, life-changing choices about his self-abuse and has led a different life. He’s never been shy about the fact that he has dirty laundry, but (so far) he hasn’t had to share it all. I’m still willing to give the benefit of the doubt on it since it all happened so long ago and has gotten much of his act together. An alcoholic stopping cold turkey gives someone a “+”, IMHO. >>
But doesn’t it irk you that he’s president? I’m hardly on the fast track to the White House and I’ve lived like Ghandi by comparison to what I’ve heard about Pres. Bush’s youthful indiscretions.
It just rubs me the wrong way that his life was so charmed that he was allowed as many mistakes as he made and still achieved the highest office in the land. How many men court self-destruction until they’re 40 and wind up president within fifteen years? Most people who remake their lives at 40 are lucky to have a clean credit rating fifteen years later.
Don’t get me wrong: I like Horatio Alger stories. I find it inspiring that Malcolm X could go from drug-addled criminal to spiritual leader within a decade. I find it less inspiring that a guy could sober himself up in order to keep from losing his family and then finally reclaim what apparently was considered his birthright within a decade.
Not that I think anyone here overly cares what a retired General has to say, and that many will proceed to tear him down. I offer this article.
“‘Bush and I were lieutenants’
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community’s attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit’s mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn’t room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today’s partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months’ basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of “summer camp.” With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2
Personally, I don’t care who Kerry screws as long as it’s not the American people as a whole.
PAD
I agree with you, but I wanna add the rest of non-american people in the world. I’m sorry to say this but American presidents are specialists in screwing us (the non americans).
Micko
Bladestar, nekouken…
The “give the President as many høøkërš… er, interns… as he wants” strategy would make perfect sense to ME… as long as the wife was okay with it…
… but that would seriously NOT “play in Peoria” as it were.
I don’t think a lot of people would stand for that to be public in the current day and age. I’d bet money that’s effectively what some other Presidents (JFK, anyone?) got away with tho…
The only thing I find possitive in Bush (he didin’t go to war) and you people make critics. lol
Micko
I dunno. Plenty of people who served in the military would go to anti-war rallies when they got out.
Sounds like an informed opinion to me, not a slam on the people currently serving.
“Let’s get out of this place where we don’t really belong,” is different from poo-pooing the efforts of people doing their duty.
It’s more like saying some of the politians made some wrong choices, or choices that ended up not working out; and we’d like to let them know we think they made some wrong choices.
**Posted by Peter David @ 02/12/2004 02:54 PM ET
Personally, I don’t care who Kerry screws as long as it’s not the American people as a whole.
PAD **
I have to say that I disagree. I think it says something about how much priority a man puts on his honor and his responsibilities when he does something like that. I don’t know for a fact, of course, that J.K. did that, but if he did, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him. I suppose that it is considered an ‘old-fashioned’ notion by the media these days, but I believe that one’s morals should count for something.
Haven’t looked overly closely at the content yet, but…
Not that I think anyone here overly cares what a retired General has to say, and that many will proceed to tear him down. I offer this article.
Doesn’t the signature at the bottom say retired Colonel? And this is actually a letter to the editor (in the Washington Times), not an article, but these are just nit-picks.
But doesn’t it irk you that he’s president?…Don’t get me wrong: I like Horatio Alger stories. I find it inspiring that Malcolm X could go from drug-addled criminal to spiritual leader within a decade. I find it less inspiring that a guy could sober himself up in order to keep from losing his family and then finally reclaim what apparently was considered his birthright within a decade.
Why would it irk me? The fact of the matter is that he did it. You, apparently, don’t like it – or choose to diminish it – because of his background and family connections, rather than paying attention to the accomplishment itself. On the surface, the only difference between MX and GWB in your two stories is that MX came from a less influential background (and, yes, there’s much more to both stories). They both still did a great deal.
As far as birthrights go, GWB was never considered heir to the Bush legacy because of his “bad days”. It was Jeb that everyone thought had the chance to be President. GWB surprised everyone when he beat Ann Richards. The expectations of the “spoiled rich kid” were never that high, and he has definitely exceeded them (unless Governor of Texas and President of the United States is somehow considered simply meeting expectations).
Kerry is the front runner because of his “EQ” (electability quotient). This adultery story, whether true ot not, will hurt his EQ. Let’s face it, Kerry has not had a stellar leadership record his 18 years in Congress. People are voting for him because he seems to have very few negatives. Well, this story is a serious negative. At this point, I would put even money on John Edwards to get the nomination (Dean is out).
Bill Mulligan, I hope you’re not talking about what Michael Moore said; because I would like to see the information you have on Wesley Clark that demonstrates how he is “a conspiracy nut.” If you are talking about what Moore said, Clark said he didn’t agree. Also, no one has proven Moore’s comments wrong. Bush still hasn’t provided records proving that he showed up in Alabama.
I would like to see the information you have on Wesley Clark that demonstrates how he is “a conspiracy nut.”
Just one example, from http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp
Clark writes in his book, “Winning
Modern Wars,” that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with “a man with three stars who used to work for me,” who told him a “five-year plan” existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.” Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, “There’s a list of countries.”
Clark’s proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this.”
At the very least he is a gossip, not a particularly attractive trait in a man and possibly a dangerous one in a leader.
I couldn’t disagree with you more about “who cares who he screws”. Does no one see this for what it is? The most important person in his life (which the spouse should be) cannot trust him. This goes for any adulterer. How can anyone trust him if his own wife can’t? Since when did this become not only acceptable, but unimportant?
It’s a matter of scale, and what’s our business. Hitler might have been the most faithfully monogomous gent in Western civilization, but that wouldn’t make him worth voting for. And Churchhill could’ve had little lap bunnies sequestered all through the house and he would’ve still been the man for the job.
If a man screws around on his wife, that’s their business. If he does, but will otherwise do things that are good for the public weal, he’s a bad husband, but a good representative. If he’s a faithful husband, but his policies are terrible, he’s a good hubbie, and a bad representative.
I understand the whole “this reflects on his trustworthiness” issue. It’s just REALLY ironic coming from so many folks defending Gov. Bush’s act of war based on lies that has led to the deaths and dismemberments of thousands.
Come back and talk to me about trustworthiness when you have a guy better than this one to rally about.
If she doesn’t know, then it’s a problem, as he is cheating. If she just doesn’t have the sex drive and doesn’t mind him getting it elsewhweere, so what.
EXACTLY Mr. Byrd, exactly.
Prove to me that the act of war was based on lies. And here I thought it was based on intelligence gathered by us as well as other countries.
General rule of thumb for posting: I don’t mind people writing their own thoughts to whatever length they wish. But I’m not ecstatic when people take up a ton of room posting material from other sources (yes, Stinger, in this case I’m referring to you, although others have done stuff like that.) In the future when people are citing material that speaks to the topic from other sources, I would prefer quoting no more than a graf or two and then attaching a link for those who want to know more.
Besides, all this is going to wind up moot anyway. Kerry’s opponents sooner or later are going to tie up the campaign discussions with gay rights, gay marriage and–of course–gays in the military. And that’ll be that.
PAD
I think marital fidelity is an important characteristic when choosing a leader. It establishes a pattern of behavior and reflects on the trustworthiness and integrity of that person. If a man is willing to break the sacred vows of marriage, why would he not break his vows of office? I also don’t think it’s OK if his wife knows- he is still a vow-breaker and a hippocrite. Don’t make marriage vows in the first place if you can’t keep them or at least get a divorce. Call me old-fashioned too, but I think a man should keep his word.
GWB surprised everyone when he beat Ann Richards.
Surprised? Hëll, I live in Oklahoma, and I could feel the hate of Ann Richards from most Texans here. The only reason she won the first time around was that her opponent was a grade ‘a’ idiot.
What surprised me about that, is that the Democratic party didn’t push Ann to the forefront. She was a great spokesperson, strong willed, and had great character. Her problem was that she was a liberal in la la land.
On the infidelity part: Face it folks… Ike had a mistress, our founding fathers weren’t all great men of character (Franklin was a lech, Jefferson et al)…
There are people saying “If his wife can’t trust him…” and “Oh, I care…”
But really, if you care if he lied… then ask yourself this: Why has this administration gone to lengths to halt investigation into intelligence before 9/11 and exactly what happend then?
Why has he had less contact with the press than any other president?
Why does this administration want to change the overtime laws to over 40 hours a week, thusly screwing those of us who work hourly?
Lying is bad, I agree. Sometimes. Infidelity is bad. But there are many bad things in this world.
Gotta question for ya. Which is worse: Getting caught lying about having sex with an intern, and throughout your presidency having 1 felony conviction connected with your administration. Or not lying, or having sex with an intern, and have numerous felony convictions connected with your administration?
My answer is neither. But the former is Clinton, the latter is Reagan. One is demonized by the Right and almost sanctified by the Left, the other is demonized by the left and sanctified by the right. Hëll, they’re just people folks.
The question is how you lead. And there’s a difference in leading and saying “This is where we go.”
We haven’t had leadership in quite awhile.
I’m rambling. Sorry, but these days the whole “Oh, god… he’s human! How dare he. He’s a president, or a presidential candidate.” bit does nothing for me. Just lead, please. (and yes I am not a fan of this administration. And I don’t think this one leads. Anyone who calls his opponent an áššhølë on tv should be considered an example.)
Travis
oops… make that should not be considered an example
Travis
I agree I have more respect for a man who keeps his marriage vows than I do one who doesn’t. I think such personal integrity is important, as are morals.
But I’m reminded of the scene written for “West Wing” but not used in which Donna tells Bartlet of three candidates for World Leader: One with crooked associates and two mistresses who chain smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day; the second was kicked out of office twice, used opium in college and drank a quart of whiskey a night; and the third was a vegetarian, teetotaling nonsmoking war hero who hever had an extramarital affair. They are, respectively, FDR, Churchill and Hitler.
Which is why what Bush did or didn’t do thirty years ago was of little interest to me…until he brought it front and center by wearing the flight suit, thereby dragging the subject kicking and screaming into current day. Which I still think is unfortunate: There’s far more compelling things to be concerned about that are actually of relevance to the futures of the American people.
PAD