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
• 
Bill Mulligan: I wonder if the rather silly “Bush AWOL” rumormongering was an attempt to grab the headlines away from this upcoming tempest.
Luigi Novi: There’s nothing rumor about it. Read the transcript of the press briefing by Scott McClellan on the matter at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html. (Cut and paste the url, cuz it doesn’t work as a link.) Just look at how many times he evades the questions about Bush’s attendance record, how many times he uses the vague meaningless phrases “fulfilled his duties,” “met his requirements” and “proud of his service,” as if pride in his service had anything to do with the questions asked, how many times he answers questions about corroboration of what Bush recalls of his service by referring back to that recollection, and then has the temerity to accuse others of “twisting the facts.”
garyb: Bush has released his National Guard records, even his dental records. What more does he have to answer?
Luigi Novi: Two questions:
1. Where was he in December of 1972, and February and March of 1973, given that the payroll records indicate he did not report for duty on during those time periods? Why do the records show that the President showed up for duty in October and November of ’72, January, April and May of ’73, but the President’s officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May ’72 to 30 April, ’73, say Bush was not observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days?
2. Why didn’t he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
Mike: 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?
Luigi Novi: By virtue of the fact that one has nothing to do with the other. No leader is without personal flaws, even deep ones, and monogamy has never, to my knowledge, been observed as one of the chief recurring traits among the greatest leaders in history. The personalities that make the best leaders do not necessarily make the best priests or even the most faithful husbands. Character just doesn’t seem to translate that way. Jot down a list of the best, most effective presidents and other leaders in history, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find an adulterer or two in there. Was FDR an effective President? JFK? Thomas Jefferson? Eisenhower? None of them were faithful to their spouses.
*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.*
That trip was to thank the sailors (and all military) for their hard work and suffering. They loved the fact that he flew out there in a military jet and was involved in a carrier landing, arguably the most dangerous non-combat manuever there is. He wasn’t the pilot, except for part of the straight and level portion of the trip, but he was on the jet. Also, he didn’t do it to please the civilians. He did it to thank the troops. The flight suit is required in jets like that. The jets have the ability to pull such intense g-forces, the bladders in the suits help keep the persons blood flowing to prevent unconsciousness. As POTUS, he probably could have said that he would fly in his business suit, but as a person with jet pilot training, he understands safety involved.
Now folks are screaming “PHOTO-OP!” Well, yes it was. It’s also a photo-op when he gives a speach in Detroit, or walks from Marine One to the door of the White House.
So far the Kerry infidelity dog ain’t huntin’: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/02/13/drudge/index.html
We’ll see, but this is sounding like typical right-wing nastiness.
That trip was to thank the sailors (and all military) for their hard work and suffering. They loved the fact that he flew out there in a military jet and was involved in a carrier landing…
I know two sailors on that boat, one an enlisted, one an officer, and they called him a “cheesball goofus” and a “fûçkìņg embarrassment” respectively.
I thought they were just reporting objectively at the time, but I still do.
“*I think marital fidelity is an important characteristic when choosing a leader.**
Why? Is it your marriage?
Seems to me that you’re sticking your nose into someone else’s private affairs by mandating the type of behavior that you (and not the participants) will tolerate.
By the way….I think it’s a REAL non-starter to hang Jane Fonda as an albatross around Kerry’s neck and a real stupid strategy. For one thing, a LOT of the current electorate felt the same way and did the same things–it wasn’t a small minority (which means they’re blaming the major part of the electorate for the same behavior). And second…he served his country and still felt the same thing; putting your butt on the line cuts you a lot of slack even with veterans.
Disagree with him, but he put himself in harm’s way and served his country…and if THAT doesn’t deserve respect, then this country isn’t worth saving.
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.
That’s bûllšhìŧ.
Pardon my French (because I won’t pardon any French. RIMSHOT).
The notion was brought up when GW Bush ran for Governor of Texas. The facts dismissed notions of infidelity and he was elected.
The notion was brought up in 2000 when Governor Bush ran for President. The facts dismissed notions of infidelity and he was elected.
Micheal Moore brought it up in the past three months while endorsing retired General Wesley Clark. The notion is so ridiculous when compared to the facts that avid leftist Peter Jennings, of all people, challenged Clark’s association with Moore given that Moore touted the notion as his own frontline, epecially in attachment to the Clark campaign. Peter $@%^$da*n Jennings said that the charge doesn’t hold up compared to the facts. He’d usually be in the first wave to condemn the Republican President but in the name of sensationalism and gosh-darn on-the-button aethesticism Jennings defended him.
Then Terry McAuliffe brought it up. Colin Powell addresses the notion as if it is unworthy of him. Aside from his views on abortion and affirmative action I trust Colin Powell.
If the charge had the ring of truth to it I doubt GW Bush really had the juice to get his political career rolling and I doubt his father or associates had the power neccessary to get him elected to the Governor’s seat in Texas if those charges had merit.
Or Bush has scammed people twice over with the same scam. Possible yet unlikely. It also kinda helps his case that Michael Moore is attacking it. I can’t see any of Moore’s arguments of attacks having validity. If I saw him assaulting anybody I’d assume that the other guy was a Priest or something.
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
I consider Kerry to be traitor to some degree. Since that’s a thick and evil charge… goto my bloody website. My real name and claim to personal imfamy is there.
I think Kerry is rat bášŧárd who got more honors than he ever deserved.
It’s fine for a veteran for a war to have thoughts on the subject and even to be against that same war after the fact. It’s a free country and war isn’t that fun.
Kerry didn’t share his own thoughts on the subject he read off a speech prepared for him by other members of the group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
That speech contained various accusations, lies, and false charges against American soldiers serving in Vietnam. Charging the majority of them with murder, torture, rape, and various atrocities (that were not true) and turning the very atmosphere here at home so the common citizens had a proclivity to spit on our boys when they returned him. He had a large part in turning our country and our citizens against our soldiers and defenders.
That’s not the work of an honorable man or an honorable soldier and warrior. That’s the work of scum.
What are my sources? Be warned! They have right-wing biases. That means that even if they report the truth some of you won’t trust them.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html
http://nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
The rat bášŧárd turned leftist to be popular and stayed leftist for every false testimonial and poisoned minds and reputations. He’s a two-face to rival comic book villains.
http://nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402090833.asp
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.
That reminds me of a real life situation where my western-civ teacher in high school gave us that same list with the same names.
Funny thing is when I tried using that same tact to save Clinton (whom I dislike) and contrast this from Hitler I got yelled at before I was finished by this young leftist my own age who berated me for comparing “my commande-in-chief to Hitler”. I told him off because since he judged before I finished…. he had no idea what the heck I was talking about.
Just the same, marital fidelity shouldn’t be the first quality in that great leader, but I’d put it in the top fifteen.
Why didn’t he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?
I recall something about not having slots available for flying in Alabama anyway, but that’s neither here nor there. I could be wrong. I’ve read a lot of stuff and wasn’t recording citations at the time.
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 ironically… his election was legitimate. Uncontestable. I can’t draw a lesson from it. More than one legitimate American election has been contestable but they were Chief Executives (as if the 2000 election wasn’t the only election with anomalies) and legislators. Most dictars weren’t elected to their public office like Chancellor Hitler was. Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovich, Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin and most other “Presidents” and general tyrants were more direct and certainly less… electable.
I said many things. The mantle of the Blue Spider should not mask the man repeating these claims.
I am Christopher J. Arndt
I am the native.
Why I am a destiny.
Why I am so wise.
Why I write such great books.
Behold… the college student.
More on Bush and Alabama at
http://www.thismodernworld.com
Peter Jennings an “avid leftist”? The guy who didn’t let a night go by, back in ’88 — when Dukakis was the Democratic nominee — without running a story about what a terrible state Massachusetts is? That Peter Jennings?
We’ll see, but this is sounding like typical right-wing nastiness.
Errr….if early reports are accurate (a big if) then Wesley Clark was at least 1 source of this rumor. Right wing?
Think logically. Why would the Republicans reveal this NOW? Why not wait until the general election? Spring an October Surprise. The Bush DUI story was devastating to the campaign, imagine what this would do to Kerry’s.
Now there ARE folks who could benefit right here and now over this revelation of Kerry infidelity. You can find them on the Dean and Edwards blogs. I know this will bring little comfort to anyone who wants to believe that nastiness is pretty much a right wing virtue but, well, there you are.
Errr….if early reports are accurate (a big if)…
That’s right.
…then Wesley Clark was at least 1 source of this rumor. Right wing?
Well, really, who knows what wing Wes really represents? I like him, mostly, but it’s very easy to see that his cred as a Democrat is pretty weak.
Also, it’s being offered as an off the record statement, which implies that even if Clark said it, he didn’t intend it for wide distribution, and someone with anti-Kerry leanings (a right winger, mayhap) decided to ignore the ethical stance of not quoting off the record material in order to get Kerry.
Peter Jennings an “avid leftist”?
Don’t you see? The man’s a journalist, and everybody knows about how all the journalists in this grand liberal media of ours are lefties. You don’t get a decoder ring or knowledge of the secret handshake otherwise (though you do get a blumpie from Ann Coulter).
Now there ARE folks who could benefit right here and now over this revelation of Kerry infidelity. You can find them on the Dean and Edwards blogs.
Hmm, let’s see…according to the latest polls, Kerry would beat Bush by about 10% if the election were held today, an even greater margin than Gore beat Bush last time.
You can’t see why your pals would be wanting to tear the man down? I seem to recall them really wanting Dean to win the race, though reports are that Edwards really worries ’em.
Also, it’s being offered as an off the record statement, which implies that even if Clark said it, he didn’t intend it for wide distribution, and someone with anti-Kerry leanings (a right winger, mayhap) decided to ignore the ethical stance of not quoting off the record material in order to get Kerry.
Well, sure,I suppose the whole thing could be a part of the Great Vast Right Wing Conspiracy…maybe the women was herself secretly a republican, mayhap.
So you’re suggesting that Clark (who may be secretly a right winger) told some (posibly right winger) reporters something off the record and, being right wingers, they went and reported it, which is what he didn’t want them to do, maybe, unless he was, of course, a right winger.
Ðámņ those right wingers! Ðámņ their perfidy! Is there no END to their evil?
And now Michael Sneed, a gossip columnist from the Chicago Sun Times is claiming that AL GORE has been talking about Kerry’s “woman problem” and that this is what kept him off the 2000 ticket.
My God! If true…AL GORE is a right winger! They’re everywhere!
Seems to me that you’re sticking your nose into someone else’s private affairs by mandating the type of behavior that you (and not the participants) will tolerate.
I don’t think adulterers should be emblazoned with a scarlet “A” and I don’t think it is usually my business if someone is cheating.
However, public leaders are subject to a higher standard or at least a higher level of scrutiny.
Also, if it is totally private, why do we take these marriage vows publicly in front of wedding guests in the first place? It’s not about the standards I mandate, it’s about someone who proclaims these standards for themselves through wedding vows, and then doesn’t carry them out. This is assuming the Kerry’s wedding vows were standard and not something along the lines of “until I change my mind or some fine young intern comes along.” (If Kerry did indeed cheat).
My biggest problem is the hypocrisy of cheaters who pretend to be nice married men to the public. I think a wife who knowingly stays in such a situation is a hypocrite as well.
Oops… forgot to put the first line in quotations.
Ðámņ those right wingers! Ðámņ their perfidy! Is there no END to their evil?
Probably not. But hope springs.
Hope springing:
BUSH IS OUT OF IT: On the budget, this president is frighteningly unaware of the reality of his own legacy and policies. That’s the only conclusion you can draw from his answers on Tim Russert. Either that, or he really is lying.
That’s Andrew “All On The Right Is Good” Sullivan writing. And he’s not the only right winger out there seeming to get really sick of Bush.
Interesting point about FDR, Churchhill and Hitler. My thing is that I just don’t have much respect for a cheater, hypocrite etc. I really wish I could find more politicians that I could respect.
Why can’t a decent, normal person be president instead of all these rich, spoiled, lying, immoral, hypocritical, out-of-touch white guys?
I guess it’s just not how the system works right now.
That Campenni letter is so full of mistakes, it’s amazing that even the Washington Times printed it.
Also, if it is totally private, why do we take these marriage vows publicly in front of wedding guests in the first place? It’s not about the standards I mandate, it’s about someone who proclaims these standards for themselves through wedding vows, and then doesn’t carry them out.
Were you there at the wedding? Do you know exactly what the vows were? And do you know how the couple regard it?
Again, you’re sticking your nose into someone’s marriage and imposing your idea of marriage onto someone else’s. Fine and dandy if they coincide…quite intrusive if they don’t.
You may be quite correct that any infidelity in this particular marriage is a betrayal of trust…but my point is that YOU DON’T KNOW. Essentially, you’re condemning them for having a different idea than you do–and I don’t find that a compelling argument.
Personally, I think the White House is making a mistake trying to “calm the waters” with all these records that have suddenly appeared out of nowhere about Bush. Those opposing him merely see it as sketchy details that proves that he not only did he go AWOL, but he cashed in on it by getting paid and seeking out benefits. That’s hardly the picture the administration wants to give and they probably would have been much better in holding off until they had something a bit more conclusive than what they have produced here in the past few days.
Did he or didn’t he? One really can’t tell with what they have so far, and grandstanding about this now only helps to make Bush look wearker than stronger.
Ever hear of swingers? They trade sex partners with other married couples, does that mean they love one another any less and that their marriage is any weaker?
Marriage is about love, sex can be expression of love, but there is more to love and marriage than sex, and their is more to sex than just love and marriage.
You really need to separate the two when looking at someone else’s relationship.
From Salon:
While quite a few pages still appear to be missing from the 1972 chapter of President Bush’s National Guard duty in Texas and Alabama, at least a few of them may have been accounted for on Wednesday — though not exactly in support of the administration’s case that Bush fulfilled his service obligations. The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday that some of Bush’s Guard files may have been intentionally dumped ahead of his presidential run in 2000:
“Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said Tuesday that in 1997, then-Gov. Bush’s chief of staff, Joe Albaugh, told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain ‘there’s not anything there that will embarrass the governor.’
“Col. Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he saw Mr. Bush’s file and documents from it discarded in a trash can. He said he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.”
According to the Morning News, the White House flatly “denied any destruction of records in Mr. Bush’s personnel file,” and Albaugh, who is now a Washington lobbyist, called Col. Burkett’s claims “hogwash.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported late Wednesday that the White House, after furnishing some of Bush’s Guard records earlier in the week, released a new document Wednesday night showing that Bush was at a military base in Alabama during the last year of his National Guard service. At least for one day, that is. According to the Post, “Bush’s staff provided copies of a one-page record of a dental exam, complete with drawings of the president’s teeth, that showed he was at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala., on Jan. 6, 1973.” Still, White House aides are now “backing away,” the Post says, from Bush’s assertion on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he’d agree to open up his entire military file if asked to do so.
That’s Andrew “All On The Right Is Good” Sullivan writing.
Have you ever actually READ Andrew Sullivan??? “All on the Right Is Good”? See what he has to say about social conservatives in general and on gay Rights in particular.
But the point that many conservatives are unhappy with Bush is a valid one and one reason why conservatism is often more appealing than liberalism–one need not feel obligated to back a political leader to the bitter end just because they represent your side. (Not that all liberals drank the Clinton Kool Aid when ordered to do so, but far too many did and will have a hard time being taken seriously now).
Have you ever actually READ Andrew Sullivan??? “All on the Right Is Good”? See what he has to say about social conservatives in general and on gay Rights in particular.
Unfortunately, I have read Sullivan, and yes, you got me on that one. I almost added something parenthetical about Sullivan’s gay issues as a Republican, but felt it distracted pointlessly from the main point, which is that many conservatives (sexual preference aside) are very, very angry about Bush’s policies and actions. Karl Rove got his ášš chewed in a meeting with GOP House leaders just a few days ago over some of this stuff. They want to support their man, him being in office and all, but he’s making it harder and harder for them.
Bush has really damaged the fiscal/libertarian sides of his base, and there are rumors that ex-judge Roy Moore of Alabama is considering a run. That’d steal a big chunk of the only remaining contingent that’s following Bush blindly, the religious right/social conservatives.
“Think logically. Why would the Republicans reveal this NOW? Why not wait until the general election? Spring an October Surprise. The Bush DUI story was devastating to the campaign, imagine what this would do to Kerry’s.” -Bill Mulligan.
When I heard about this scandal, I flipped to the conservative talk radio station near me just to see what was going on, and this comment was mentioned. There is perfectly good reason to bring up this point now-the Republicans are scared to go up against Kerry (perhaps, I’m not sure, this is just a theory, here). So, why not take him out of the primary running now so Bush has to face someone who is emminently unelectible? Not a bad strategy, I have no idea if it’s the truth.
In another related bit of stupidity from said talk show (I try to make no ties to either political party, because I think we should be voting for a person, not a team, and I despise the mudslinging and conspiracy theories from both sides) was that they claim the Clinton’s are heavily involved in the leaking of this information. They (the radio show hosts) are certain that the Clinton’s are either trying to sabotage the Dem party this year so that Hillary can run next time around, or so that Hillary can step forth this year when the other nominees are in shambles and lead the party to victory. Sounds a bit too much like a movie script to me.
Anywhat, as usual, monkeys.
Oh, and I’m so far impressed with everyone’s conduct. Way to go us.
Drudge isn’t too clear on when this alleged infidelity occurred. I have heard rumors that while Kerry was separated from his first wife there might have been affairs…which techinically would still be infidelity since the divorce wasn’t final. But I don’t think most people would consider that the same thing as cheating on a wife.
I like how Drudge uses phrases like “newspapers are investigating” and “this is hard to prove.” Drudge doesn’t report facts. He reports rumors and insinuations.
I hear the Kerry campaign responed today to the “Kerry and Fonda” photo with an old photo of their own — the one with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the early ’80s. 😉
Bush has really damaged the fiscal/libertarian sides of his base, and there are rumors that ex-judge Roy Moore of Alabama is considering a run. That’d steal a big chunk of the only remaining contingent that’s following Bush blindly, the religious right/social conservatives.
There’s no chance in hëll that Roy will get the nomination over George, and there’s no chance in hëll those selfsame religious right/social conservatives would vote for Kerry over Bush. Karl Rove is taking the extreme right wing of the Republican party for granted, and it’s a ploy that’s working.
There’s no chance in hëll that Roy will get the nomination over George, and there’s no chance in hëll those selfsame religious right/social conservatives would vote for Kerry over Bush. Karl Rove is taking the extreme right wing of the Republican party for granted, and it’s a ploy that’s working.
Moore could go third party. People who’d vote for a guy like him aren’t overwhelmed with common sense either, so a lot would vote for him just because he’s their kind of idiot. Kind of like Naderites.
More to the point, and realistically, the fact that these rumblings are going on even among Bush’s most fanatical followers indicates that the discontent runs even within their ranks. While it may not lead to an actual spoiler candidate entering the fray, it could lead to a small minority of people not bothering to vote.
And all it could take would be one Justice to stay home…
George W beat Ann Richards because she publicly said she was going to veto the law allowing Texans to carry concealed weapons, with a permit. The Republicans exploited it and that’s how he became Governor of Texas. If she hadn’t made that one misstep, she would have been re-elected.
Moral of the story, never get between a Texan and his/her guns.
Mike: 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?
Well, I’m dealing with a situation that bears some relevance to this. I recently became friends with a woman, and almost immediately after I first met her, she learned that her boyfriend of five years had been cheating on her with her best friend and got her pregnant.
Once past her initial rage, she came to terms with the fact that this man, in spite of what he had done, was virtually family. He’d become so ingrained into her life that she couldn’t cut him loose. Resolving herself to never hook up with him again, now that she knows he his capable of such ethical misconduct, she still socializes with him quite a lot.
I’ve talked with her some about this, because I’m having difficulty wrapping my head around it, and she gave me the rundown on his life, what kind of person he is, and what their relationship was like. Frankly, the infidelity aside, he’s a hëll of a guy who’s had more than his fair share of bad luck. He grew up in some awful housing project, admitted guilt to something his cousin did and took the prison time for him — arguably a bad thing, but I’m told the cousin actually rehabilitated himself in response to this — and got out of prison to find that his single mother had been deemed an unfit parent and all of his siblings had been shipped off to foster homes where he couldn’t find any of them. He’s exceptionally bright, got straight-As in school, and a lot of other stuff that makes me really want to like him. Unfortunately, first thing I ever found out about him was that he cheated on his girlfriend of five years.
For the record, I still can’t wrap my head around it. I can’t combine in my mind the man she described and the man who cheated on her.
I’m unlikely to ever welcome this guy into any significant part of my life, because I place a pretty high regard on personal ethical conduct, and he has shown he lacks the strength of character to restrain himself in the face of temptation. I’m probably never going to call him a friend.
That said, I wouldn’t vote for any of my friends. They’re all smart people, but they tend to lean a little too close to leaning only one direction politically. In my experience, people who aren’t a mix of liberal and conservative in their beliefs and politics have no business making decisions for anyone but themselves, if that. People like that don’t really think about problems and situations, and thus never accomplish anything significant.
The ex-boyfriend mentioned above, though, I have had an opportunity to discuss politics with, and he has clearly put a lot of thought into all of his opinions; they’re not just an issue of which side of the fence he sits on, he actually wants to see things improve and isn’t afraid to take ideas from both liberals and conservatives.
I may not ever invite this guy into my life, but I’d vote for him if he ran. There’s a lot more to character than ethical conduct, and a man whose only obvious failing is that he cheats on his wife (joining VVAW doesn’t strike me as a bad thing; Vietnam was a political blunder, and I would have probably done anything I could have as well to get the US away from there as fast as possible) — well, I’d have to reconcile it, but ultimately that’s not as important as getting a guy in office who actively wants the country and the world to be a better place.
Why can’t a decent, normal person be president instead of all these rich, spoiled, lying, immoral, hypocritical, out-of-touch white guys?
Because anyone who seks power is exactly the kind of person who should never be allowed to have it.
I think a wife who knowingly stays in such a situation is a hypocrite as well.
Hilary for President!
I think a wife who knowingly stays in such a situation is a hypocrite as well.
This is kind of lazy word use. She’s a hypocrite if she does so and goes out and preaches to others that they shouldn’t do that. Otherwise, the term really doesn’t apply.
If the Dems are foolish enough to pick this moron then they deserve everything they get like higher taxes.
We could have twenty years more of solid Republican rule and the taxes will still have to come back up to fix all the damage Bush is leaving in his wake.
Even many Republicans are seeing this. Must be just the smart ones. (That’;s speaking relatively, of course).
“Why can’t a decent, normal person be president instead of all these rich, spoiled, lying, immoral, hypocritical, out-of-touch white guys?”
“Because anyone who seeks power is exactly the kind of person who should never be allowed to have it.”
I think you win the cigar, Den (and y’all can just insert your own joke there.)
People with the ambition and audacity to believe they can be president are the same type who believe they are entitled to have their cake and eat it too (ouch….I’m on a roll.) I just wish they were smart enough and cunning enough to keep it a dámņ secret. To me, it’s not so much about electing a guy who can keep it in his pants; I want a president to be crafty enough to keep his affairs out of the papers.
Tim, you’re right… I just wish I had more time, PAD’s literary abilities, and an editor to go through my posts! 🙂
Tim, you’re right… I just wish I had more time, PAD’s literary abilities, and an editor to go through my posts! 🙂
Thanks for responding so graciously; it would’ve been easy to take my comment as harsher than intended (especially considering some of my intentionally harsh posts).
I also wanted to point out that I see nothing wrong with hiding personal business from the public sphere, especially in matters that may already have been resolved privately between the folks involved. George and Laura Bush could be swingers and s&m partiers for all I know or care, and it’d be fine for him to play the dim bulb version of fifties dad that he does to protect his public interests, in the same way a gay person doesn’t have to come out at work if they feel it’ll damage them there, or anyone with different private habits might want to stay under cover among others who might frown on those habits. If Kerry were an adulterer, he’d be wrong to hide that from his wife, who is the person effected, but it’d still be within his rights to act like a good family man in the public eye. It may not even be such a stretch, because otherwise he might be an exemplary family man. He’d run the risk of damage if his private activities came out, of course, but that’s where good and bad judgement come into play.
No one except those directly involved has any implicit right to be let in on someone’s private business, unless that private business might directly involve them (for example, if Bush was smoking crack, which I doubt even though it’d explain a lot, that could seriously effect his already limited abilities to make good decisions for the public weal, and thus would be important for the public to know; if he’s a chronic mášŧûrbáŧër who loves smearing molasses on Laura’s buttocks and singing Nazi military songs, that really only effects them, and is no one else’s business).
I wanted to clarify something I’d said earlier. When I stated that Teresa Heinz had claimed that she would blow her husband away with a gun…well, here’s the actual quote:
Her views on marital fidelity: “I don’t think I could have coped so well” with a mate’s philandering as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has. “I used to say to my husband, my late husband, ‘If you ever get something I’ll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you.’ And we’d laugh, laugh, laugh.”
yep, good times, good times. At any rate, it is now clear to me that she was only talking about her late husband, the Republican senator, not Lurch. Once again, a Republican is expected to adhere to a higher standard than a Democrat is. Fortunately, that isn’t too hard.
Although I try to keep the concepts of “John Kerry” and “sexual relations” tucked as far away in opposite corners of my mind as is possible, there is one aspect of this that is perhaps worthy of concern.
Once a man or woman decides to run for president it seems to me that they should have the smarts to realize that certain behaviors that are tolerated in lesser officials are not acceptable to many in the chief executive.
Patrick Moynihan was a great man, a great senator and a drunk. I still might have pulled the lever for him but having a man with his finger on the button who makes Winston Churchill look like a teetotaler is cause for concern.
Whatever Kerry’s understanding with the Mrs, he has a duty to his party not to let an itch in his pants risk sending them to defeat. IF these acusations are true–and I won’t make the same mistake many of my more liberal friends do by always assuming the worst of the opposition–it reveals a genuine flaw in the man’s personality that has nothing to do with one’s view of sexual morality.
I speak with experience, I come from the same state Kerry does and believe me when i say “MA” has the higest taxes in the country. Businesses have left and none are coming in. So, Repub/Dem it doesn’t matter who’s in office but, mark my words, if you guys go with Kerry, the entire country will have the highest taxes you have ever seen. Go look at MA’s track record to see what I’m talking about and no one has called him on this. Do you know how hard it is to get a good paying job in this “MA” state? Come here to work and you will quickly change your tune about Kerry the rich war hero.
Teddy/Kerry have run MA into the ground. Come visit here, even for a day. It’s nothing but a welfare state and always has been. hmm, funny no one mentions this either. Two of the richest men in the state and It still blows my mind that N.H. a tax free state went with this a-hole. You dems are going to regret it. If Kerry gets elected prez. I’m going to Canada, maybe there, I’ll be able to find a real job. If he gets elected, N.H. can kiss its tax free state goodbye and I hope OBL hits us hard when and if he gets elected just like they did to W. when he took office. So, yeah, go ahead Dems. Vote for Kerry your war hero.
Two of the richest Senators Teedy/Kerry come from one of the poorest States in the US. Wonder why that is???
Okay, Dee…
Explain to me exactly how John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are responsible for the tax situation in Massachusetts?
Sounds like it’s as much your fault as theirs, if you’re from there too.
Good stuff:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/14/burkett/index.html
Tim,
Equally good stuff:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/13/doubts_raised_on_bush_accuser/
Agreed. If the guy is lying, hopefully that’ll come out.
If so, here’s hoping we can also find some truly convincing evidence that shows Bush did his duty. Then we can move on to more important considerations, like all the crappy job Bush is doing NOW, and will continue to do if he’s actually ever elected president.
Great website, Peter.
Political discussion fanscinates me something fierce, and I love the dialogue. As long as all sides can still shake hands in the end and enjoy the fruits of your labor, it is a GOOD thing.
There are TWO issues at play here, assuming that John Kerry has “an intern problem.”
One: if he lied about it to Imus, of course Imus is correct to conclude that Kerry is DEAD. Trust is CRITICAL and must be something that the American people can believe with their president.
Two: Is Kerry capable of dealing with his failings in such a matter as to show the rest of the world that he can do his job without such distractions in the future?
A good argument could be made that Bill Clinton could have resolved the Iraq issue in 1998 without clouds of “Wag The Dog” had he not had an intern problem of his own.
My respect for Kerry’s military service ends the day he stepped foot back on American soil. And ANY GOP supporter who goes after the man for any action prior to that date risks the wrath of those who pay attention to that sort of thing. Including me.
Finally, I think the whole debate about Vietnam, what one did years before, etc. are nothing more than silly, dangerous distractions. What *I* really want to talk about are the issues of the here and now.
If the best the opposition has to offer is what someone did or didn’t do in Alabama or Washington D.C. decades ago, then that is truly pitiful.
George W. Bush and John F. Kerry are not saints. But they do represent very different visions of where the US could go. I’d like to talk more on those visions than about an old military service record or the acquaintences of either party.