If I’m the GOP and I’m seeing all the over-the-top plans for protestors, I’d be salivating. I’d be saying, “Bring it on.”
I am VERY concerned over this orgy of protesting. I’m not entirely sure of the purpose of it. It comes across to me as massively self-indulgent in that not only will it accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company, but it may well swing undecided voters to the Bush camp. Why? Because Americans lean toward underdogs, and as protestors do everything they can to make the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible, all they’re gonna do is make the GOP come across as sympathetic. “Those poor Republicans, can’t even have their convention without demented naked Kerry supporters trying to hog the spotlight.”
It’s bad enough with these garbage Swiftboat commercials (although if Kerry expected anything else, he was being naive. The GOP successfulyly painted John McCain, a POW, as “loony,” and Max Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm to a war, as being soft on American security issues, so Kerry thought…what? They wouldn’t pull the same crap on him?) eroding Kerry’s numbers. But Kerry’s own supporters may be the GOP’s best friends.
PAD
• 
I say”
Cator says:
“There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered.”
I reply:
No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.
catori says:
Y”ou say no. I read yes. I’ll take the news report over your word, thanks.”
Ooookay. Of course, you fail to list any news report. Here’s one, from the Boston Globe:
Kerry refuses to release more records
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004
WASHINGTON — The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters,a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving
undisclosed many of Kerry’s evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.
Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” was asked whether he would follow President Bush’s example and release all of his military records. “I have,” Kerry said. “I’ve shown them — they’re available for you to come and look at.” He added that “people can come and see them at headquarters.”
But when a reporter showed up yesterday morning to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper.
“He is releasing all military records he has released to The Boston Globe,” Meehan said in a telephone interview. In a follow-up e-mail, Meehan said it was those particular records to which Kerry was referring on “Meet the Press.”
Kerry has not released the formal evaluations from superior officers, although his campaign has given a letter from a commanding officer that recommended him for service aboard Navy patrol boats and also reports for the Silver and Bronze stars that laud Kerry’s actions in combat. By comparison, retired Army General Wesley K. Clark released hundreds of pages
of his records during the Democratic primary campaign, including all evaluations of him by his superiors.
Bush earlier this year released 300 pages of documents after media outlets raised new questions about the extent of his National Guard service.Those records, which Bush promised during a Feb. 8 appearance on “Meet the Press” to make available, included many military evaluations and medical records.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in a telephone interview, contrasted Bush’s action with that of Kerry’s. “The president
made a pledge before the American people, and he made his complete file available to the media and the public,” Bartlett said. “They were able to
review all of his medical records, and we fully released the remainder of his military files, including evaluations and performance sheets as well as days served. The president lived up to his commitment he made to the public, and we should expect the same from his opponent.”
The question about Kerry’s military records came up when Tim Russert, the moderator of “Meet The Press,” asked the Massachusetts senator about a story in the Globe last week that quoted Kerry’s former commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, as saying that he raised questions about Kerry’s first Purple Heart. Hibbard said that he had heard from others in
the office that there were questions about whether Kerry and his crew took enemy fire, and Hibbard observed that Kerry’s wound was minor, resembling a fingernail scrape. Purple Heart regulations say nothing about the severity
of the wound. The campaign earlier this year showed the Globe a record verifying that Kerry was treated for the wound and that shrapnel was
removed. That document was cited in last week’s story, which was based on the forthcoming book, “John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography,” written by a team of Globe reporters.
Meehan said yesterday that the campaign would show that document to what he called “legitimate” news organizations. He said other records previously shared with the Globe — including documents describing Kerry’s
actions when he was awarded the Silver and Bronze stars — would be shared with other reporters. Asked whether Kerry would release his evaluations, as Clark did during the primaries, Meehan responded: “We don’t have Wesley
Clark’s evaluations.” Asked directly whether Kerry would release all of his own evaluations, Meehan repeated that the campaign would release only the records already made available.
Meehan similarly said no new records would be released when asked if the campaign would make public other medical records besides the one related to the first Purple Heart.
Well sir, there’s the news report. You no longer need to take my word for. You’re welcome.
Catori says:
“Yeah, 50 miles in a country you’re unfamiliar with during war time when your mind is on staying alive and not getting shot..I can understand how there would be no confusion or uncertainity of your position. Excuse me, gotta go roll my eyes.”
I think that Kerry was familar enough with the country to know that the mekong delta runs from Cambodia to vietnam…you can never be more than 100 miles or so far away from cambodia no matter WHERE you are on it.
But again, sir, you ignore the fact that while, as I said, you can allow for mistakes, what Kerry did in recounting this story over and over again, was to try to use it to influence policy.
He claimed that the US president (who was not president at the time), intentionally sent him on a secret mission into Cambodia and that this memory was “seared, seared” into his mind.
Now he admits it did not happen.
That’s a big goof, way more than the picture you paint of a lost, scared guy under fire thinking he is somewhere he is not.
The Swift vets nailed this one, the Kerry camp has admitted it and all the eye rolling in the world won’t change things. It would be best for the Kerry camp to change the subject and move on but if they want to keep picking at the scab and pretend they aren’t making the wound any bigger, be my guest.
PAD:
“(not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really)”
Do you have any idea how tired this sounds? The Electoral College is in place for the specific reason that we are not one huge landmass called “The United States”, similar to how England is simply England.
Each state has its own “personality” and priorities. California has much more stringent environmental regulations than, say, Pennsylvania. Alabama has much more relaxed gun laws than, say, New York. Also, many states seek change in defiance of, or prior to, the federal government – Prop 209 in Californis, the Governor of New mexico who pushed for decriminalization of drugs, etc.
If you really feel we should be treated as one nation, then you would embrace total Federalism. Forget states’ rights, Governors, and State Supreme Courts. The only Chief Executive in the land would be the President, and all major legal challenges would be heard by the Supreme Court (which may cause justices to retire at a much younger age due to the increased workload during their terms).
Somehow,
I don’t think many would like this. You may get more stringent environmental laws “across the land”, but you may also have the whole country having the same attitudes on education, gun rights and gay rights as the Deep South.
Further, the Electoral College increases the significance of even the smallest states. I believe Rhode Island has about 400,000 people (although I may be mistaken. Please let me know if I am. I know its real small, and may even be less). So in a nation of close to 300 million people, their population is 1/600th of the nation, and 1/300th +1 of what it would take to get a majority. But their three electoral votes are slightly less than 1/180th of the Electoral total, and 1/90th of what it would take to win. While the candidates are not still not going to spend a lot of time in Rhode Island, they would have far less reason for doing so if the votes were simply counted coast-to-coast, and not within state boundaries and tabulated by the Electoral College system.
The ironic thing about all of this is for a couple weeks before the election most political pundits, and then-DNC Chairman, former-Philly Mayor and current-PA Governor Ed Rendell thought the opposite of what actually happened was gong to occur. That Bush would win by huge margins in Texas and states in the South and would win the popular vote, but that Gore would win in the Electoral College. And if that had happened, I would not have been happy, but would have accepted it. Because I understand the rules and why they are in place.
And can you wrap your mind around the thought that maybe, just maybe, if Bush “wins” the debates it will be because people listened to both men, and actually liked what Bush has to say better than what Kerry has to say? I realize this is out of the box thinking, and it is much easier to believe that Bush and anyone who supports him are morons. But try it. You just might like it.
Catori,
You’re joking, right? That a Kerry, a trained soldier, would not know what country he was in means that this “war hero” is either lying or was so overcome by fear that he did not even know which country he was in, which actually would make him a liability and not an asset to his unit. All soldiers obviously are aware of the constant danger they face. But the best way to prevent that is by following orders, and being aware of their surroundngs at all times. Again, most Vietnam soldiers were not a bunch of frightened, confused children who had to only worry about snipers. Both sides were extremely organized (a refreshing fact deomonstrated in “We Were Soldiers”). If Kerry did not pay attention to things like surroundings, likely signs for land mines, areas/signs that would indicate enemy or sniper activity, then he was a bumbling incompetent who is lucky he wasn’t killed. Of course, that would explain how he got so many Purple Hearts in such a short span of time, even the ones that weren’t for self-inflicted injuries.
Roll your eyes all you want. This lie, made while trying to make a political point and compounded with not even getting the name of the president at the time right, says a lot about him. Again, if he wants to keep bringing it up and thinks it is a winning issue…well, be sure to thank him for me if you get a chance to see him at a rally.
I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is …
The same way that Gore made Bush look like the babbling fool that he is in 2000?
Oh wait …
… and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews…. that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made. I honestly believe we’ll see all of this and only hope that the undecided are able to see it and respond accordingly.
Are we looking at the same candidates?
In 2000 it was Gore who got all flustered and looked like a raving loon. Remember when he ran over to Bush’s podium and how calm Bush was in that situation?
Bush does get flustered when facing a hostile “open questions” media group. That’s one of his main weaknesses. But debates are not the same thing. When Bush has his stuff prepared, as he will for the debates, Bush does a good job.
As for who will most likely come off looking like a raving lunatic, just look at Kerry’s current self-implosion. His “rally” after the RNC was just sad and pathetic. “Really not compassionate”? “All Hat No Cattle”? “Five words: Here is your wake up call”? He just reeked of desperation.
All Bush would have to do is just disagree with Kerry on one thing and Kerry would lose it and start screaming that Bush was questioning his patriotism and that he served in Vietnam (you do know he served in Vietnam, right? Apparently it’s this huuuuuggggggeeeeee secret).
It will be a marvelous meltdown to watch.
I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared … SEARED … in Kerry’s memory and Kerry’s post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say “I think Kerry served honorably, and I don’t think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same.”
What part of denouncing them first does not get through to you? Kerry did so weeks before and asked the same of Bush. he was silent until he thought the SBV’s had done their job.
Where did Kerry denounce the anti-Bush ads? I haven’t seen any articles on that.
Second, as I said, Bush absolutely played Kerry like a fiddle regarding the SBV ads and 527s in general. The wait was just the perfect amount of time.
And then Kerry refused to, saying “it’s not enough! whiiinnne!”?
Post proof of this. I recall his calling on Bush to denounce the SBVs, I recall Bush refusing. now wonder if that might be because of the major contributors that backed the ads?
Bush denounced *all* 527s. Including the SBV ads. He said that none of them had a place in this campaign, including that ad with “that ad” meaning the SBV ads.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L3UO01.html
“That ad and every other ad” run by such groups have no place in the campaign, Bush said when asked about the commercial sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that has roiled the race for the White House.
In Texas at his ranch, Bush said, “I don’t think we ought to have 527s,” a reference to the outside groups that have poured millions of dollars over the past year into attack ads. Bush himself has been a main target of ads costing some $60 million. Bush said all of the ads should be stopped.
“That means that ad,” he said, referring to the anti-Kerry ad, “and every other ad.”
“I couldn’t be more plain about it,” Bush said “I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s.”
And the Kerry campaign’s reaction?
Catori says:
“Get a grip. Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they’re connected. Good lord, man, even in your rant here you begin with a reference to them. The question of Kerry’s medals has been answered numerous times. You choose not to accept it and continue to cling to the falsehoods. So be it. “
Really. Let’s take a look, shall we? My very first post on the issue (August 29, 1:03 pm):
“Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH. All the truth? That’s probably not the case, but the FACT is that the Kerry campaign has now altered their stories on TWO of the positions that the SBV brought to light. They’ve switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue. “
ME NOW: Do you see a reference to the ads in there? Do ya? Do ya? Oooh…notice how I even say there that maybe what the SBV are saying is 100% accurate? Oh no, you ignored that. But that’s ok. Let’s continue our voyage, with Catori’s response (posted August 29, 4:43), which ignores pretty much everything I wrote:
“Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.
“
Which claims were repudiated, Catori? The ones I mentioned, or the ones you decided to suddenly bring into the coversation…which you didn’t actually bring in.
Let’s continue with me at 8:18:
“Well, ignoring the fact that you chose not to print the VERY NEXT LINE I WROTE, I have to ask, WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn’t a matter of “flip-flopping” or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.”
So, I point out you ignored my post, reiterated my statement about the FACTS that KERRY CONCEDED THAT THE SBV WERE CORRECT, and SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ADS. Still with me?
Here’s your response, September 2, 8:28:
“Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.”
And you mention THE ADS AGAIN, once again IGNORING EVERYTHING ELSE. Not ME bringing up the ads, YOU.
Finally, on September 3, I posted this:
“Ummm…ok, you know what, you need to read what you’re responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I’ve had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light…Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads…ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct…I think it’s incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they’re SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry’s statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I’m sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement.”
And I bring up the issues I was talking about YET AGAIN (which are still conveniently ignored by you), and mention the ads only in reference to Bill Mulligan’s post.
Soooo….now explain this line of your most previous post on the matter to me:
“Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they’re connected.”
I think I’ve relatively proved my point that you don’t bother to read what other people post…you just want to list your talking points.
wont to know why kerry wont release his mil.rec. is it becouse he only used purple hearts to get out of vetnam.and wonts no one to know he was onley scratched.
You can’t be 40680 serious?!?