The comedy stylings of John Kerry have provided something else to play into GOP hands besides congressional pages. They’re teeing off on his statement that lack of education “lands you in Iraq,” claiming that he was trash-talking the troops. Everyone knows that lack of supporting the troops has replaced social security as the third rail of politics. Kerry’s response is that he was making a misfired joke about the administration.
Who to believe? Well, putting aside my personal dislike for Bush and the fact that I voted for Kerry, let’s see what makes more sense: The notion that Kerry, who served in the armed forces, would be dissing the troops, or that Kerry, who despises Bush and Co., would be dissing the administration.
To quote that great pundit, Daffy Duck: Pronoun trouble. Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said “we.” “We wind up in Iraq,” which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on “you,” then it becomes, “you wind up landing us in Iraq.” Something like that.
Considering word around the campfire is that “Studio 60” may be shutting down soon, perhaps Kerry can draft Aaron Sorkin to write some jokes for him.
PAD
• 
Between the mudslinging at every commercial break and the GOP spinmonsters grabbing áhøld of this and lying through their teeth (seriously, they can’t be psychotic enough to actually believe they think it was an insult to the troops, they just hope enough voters are stupid enough to buy it)…AND the news lapping this up and gleefully parroting the spinmonster line….
…well, it’s now almost impossible to watch the news.
Politics ain’t beanbag. When your opponent says something stupid you are perfectly ok to call them on it.
At least one Democrat has disinvited Kerry from a campaign stop, so this is not just a Rovian plot to make him look bad. Kerry does that just fine on his own.
I would have to disagree that the notion that Kerry would diss the troops is unfathomable. He did a pretty good job of that back in 1971. That said, one should not blame mendacity when stupidity is a more likely excuse and that would certainly be the case here.
Had he just said “Hey, I screwed up a joke.” right at the beginning it would have been a 1 day story, mostly ignored. By hitting back to show the “NEw & Improved, with 20% More Backbone” John Kerry and THEN admitting he screwed up he made it a 3 or 4 day story. Way to go. The man has the poilitical smarts of a lemur.
Kerry, accidently slamming the military; it doesn’t surprise me. Traditionally, the strong left is not a fan of the military. I just thought it was a slip (to the left.)
You ever wonder how elections would go, if the news media would just report the news, rather than picking and choosing what to show; or mulling over events ad nausum or worse, put out polls perdicting the winners, expecially when they’re always so “right”. (Isn’t perdicting the future the opposite of reporting current events?) All these poll comments are either going to make Democrats stay home, thinking they’ve won things or make Republicans stay home thinking it’s a lost cause. That’s not reporting the news, but making the news.
Best political editoral I’ve seen came (but I don’t know where it came from) “My opponent is an idiot, and I approved this ad.” And that sums up the campaigning this year.
My thoughts on this is that only the stupid would think that Kerry’s comments were directed to those serving in the military. Which, given the GOP’s reaction, kind of proves my point. Bush has always had his intelligence questioned. He either is, or acts like, an idiot. And the GOP clearly thinks its voter base is too stupid to see the truth behind the lies they spin left and right (right and right?)
What gets me is some Democratic separation from Kerry. What’s the #1 thing Democratic supporters have been crying for…for someone to fight back, show some backbone, stand up to the GOP administration juggernaut. Here’s Kerry doing exactly that, standing behind his words, standing behind the truth, and refusing to back down from calling the president and this administration out on their actions. And rather than get behind and support someone finally taking a strong position against the GOP, he gets thrown under the bus by some.
Huh. You got to love the way the Texas National Guardman and his Vietnam-what-Vietnam ilk have managed to paint the Purple-Heart-winner into being the one doing such a grave disservice to the troops while pouring a few thousand American men and women into the meat grinder of modern American foreign policy at the bayonet’s tip. That takes chutzpah — and an American press willing to allow them to frame the discussion thusly and not call them on it, and to allow the “righteous indignation” to become a story itself.
When the opponent plays such a consistent playbook of prey-on-fear and kill-the-messenger, you can’t afford to make those kind of pronoun mistakes a week before a national election. It’s moments like this that move a legacy away from “elder statesman” to “political embarrassment.”
“seriously, they can’t be psychotic enough to actually believe they think it was an insult to the troops, they just hope enough voters are stupid enough to buy it)”
Well, let’s see how solid that hope is, based upon a poll off the AOL news feed:
“How do you view Senator Kerry’s remark?
A deliberate insult 58%
A botched joke 34%
I’m not sure 9%”
I think that kind of speaks for itself vis a vis GOP hopes for voter stupidity.
PAD
If I remember correctly, Kerry’s words were “leave you stuck in Iraq”. The word stuck was as problematic as the lack of pronoun, since while Bush has certainly has us stuck in Iraq, it is a word with very physical connotations and I have never viewed Bush as stuck in Iraq. He made the choices that left the nation stuck.
I don’t know…his statement was mainly whining and petty insults. That is hardly the same thing as getting a backbone or standing up against the Administration. What Kerry needs is a script writer who could write something that clearly apologizes to the troops for the misunderstanding and doesn’t sling insults, making him look like a child (He indulged in making fun of a person’s physical appearance, jeez, I don’t like Limbaugh, but calling him “doughy” is hardly a substanative response). His response makes him look petty and weak, not strong and noble.
“If you vote for a Democrat you are supporting the terrorist”. This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President. He is not misspeaking. It is exactly what he means to say.
But that’s all right. Why take him to task for saying half the population supports terrorism.
But John Kerry muffs a joke and let’s spend the next 5 days making it a major issue.
That darn liberal media.
He did a pretty good job of that back in 1971.
Considering he’d actually served in a war, unlike anybody in the current makeup of the Bush Administration, and had seen things some of us thankfully will never have to witness, I’d say he’s well within his right to critize those involved in specific events.
Consider events like Abu Ghraib, and you quickly realize that those things Kerry said happened, atrocities and such, could very well have happened and some likely did.
I find the right-wing attacks against those that actually went to war, such as McCain and Kerry to be far more despicable, again, heavily taking into account that those making the attacks never went to war, or did all the could to avoid service.
Conservatives had no problem allowing the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” to make a mockery of Kerry’s service to this country.
Yet, they now rally against Kerry’s comments.
Absolutely pathetic.
Kerry has nothing to apologize for.
One would think that, having served his 3 months in Vietnam, Kerry couldn’t possibly have been slamming the military. He certainly didn’t exhibit any of those feelings when he came back from overseas and testified before congress. No sirree.
Of course, if he was making an education joke about the President, it might have made more of an impact if Kerry had pulled down better grades than Bush did.
Personally, I think Kerry knew what he said, knew how it would be interpreted, and did it to “take one for the team” and thus start lathering up the base. But then, maybe I’m just giving him too much credit.
Didn’t Bush once say something along the lines of “…the terrorists never stop trying to think of new ways to hurt our country, and neither do we.”
So why hasn’t anyone demanded that he apologize to the American public for trying to think of ways to hurt them?
Really, if someone were to go through all the ‘Bushisms’ looking for things to take out of context like this, I’m sure you could find hundreds.
But, of course, no one pays any attention to HIS verbal slipups.
“But, of course, no one pays any attention to HIS verbal slipups.”
That’s not entirely true. Book publishers and calendar manufacturers have made a small fortune off Bush’s ineptitude.
It’s just that it no longer makes the news because, well…Bush saying something stupid isn’t considered news. It’s same old/same old.
PAD
Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said “we.” “We wind up in Iraq,” which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on “you,” then it becomes, “you wind up landing us in Iraq.” Something like that.
Wouldn’t that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don’t, then you’ll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq? Calling all republicans stupid, might not be a better outcome.
“If you vote for a Democrat you are supporting the terrorist”.This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President. He is not misspeaking. It is exactly what he means to say.
And yet, when I type that “quote” into google I get no hits. Huh. Explain, please.
Didn’t Bush once say something along the lines of “…the terrorists never stop trying to think of new ways to hurt our country, and neither do we.”
So why hasn’t anyone demanded that he apologize to the American public for trying to think of ways to hurt them?
I doubt that Bush would react to such a request with fury and indignation and look like an ášš. Because–and I know this hurts–he’s smarter than Kerry. Faint praise but there you are.
Calling all republicans stupid, might not be a better outcome.
Well, I’ve said it outright plenty of times after the ’04 election: Republicans were stupid because they put Bush back in the White House.
But hey, they deserve nothing less if they’re going to support an Administration which is once again repeatedly saying that Democrats support terrorists.
“The Democrat approach on Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,”
I reserve the right to misconstrue this comment any which way I choose, and to me, Bush is saying “Democrats support terrorism”.
The American public will also do no less.
And it’s nothing less than the insinuations made post-9/11 that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
“Wouldn’t that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don’t, then you’ll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq?”
It could mean that if you beat it and tortured it so that it was no longer remotely recognizable as the original sentiment, yeah. Then again, this administration supports beating and torture, except when it doesn’t support beating and torture, and staying the course except when they say they weren’t all about staying the course, so who knows?
PAD
“I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it.”
Bush is certainly better at rehashing the same statements repeatedly to a mind-numbing degree. I am not sure that he is as smart as Kerry though.
Eric!, I’m not sure of the intention behind your post, but Kerry’s statement about voting for before voting against has been taken out of context so many times that it makes me bonkers when I hear it touted about. The vote in question was a “yay” and failed. The proposal was changed significantly before he voted “nay”.
“I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it.”
Ooo, nice. Let’s put something inept that Kerry said several years ago against Bush saying stupid things such as “However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,” two days ago.
The terrorists “won” the moment Bush and company pursued a course that was straight out of the bin Laden wish list.
PAD
Try putting this quote into google:
“However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.”
“I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it.”
Did you know that Bush rejected a Department of Homeland Security, a Clinton idea, before accepting it after 9/11?
Sometimes, people change their minds about things. I know, I know, that means you’re nothing more than a ‘flip-flopper’, but hey, who isn’t? Bush is as much of one as Kerry.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 09:33 AM
I doubt that Bush would react to such a request with fury and indignation and look like an ášš. Because–and I know this hurts–he’s smarter than Kerry. Faint praise but there you are.
Bill, please. By stupidly ignoring the advice of experienced generals and other military experts, and by relying on silly assumptions rather than planning for foreseeable contingencies, George W. Bush got us involved in a war that even conservative’s conservatives like George Will have labeled a “fiasco.” That shows a level of hubris, arrogance, and abject stupidity that eclipses any of John Kerry’s mistakes.
Bush is no less politically tone deaf than Kerry, by the way. Bush began his presidency with a wealth of political capital that many of his predecessors would’ve given their eyeteeth for: a national resolve to rally around our president in the wake of 9/11. Yet Bush pìššëd away that political capital to the point where he was only able to narrowly beat Kerry in the 2004 election (that’s pretty sad for a wartime president), and has continued to piss away that capital to the point where he is on the political equivalent of food stamps.
You know, it’s funny. Donald Rumsfeld put his foot in it when he told the press corps to “back off and relax” while soldiers are dying in Iraq. I don’t recall much conservative outrage over that. And I don’t see much liberal outrage over Kerry’s remarks.
This is the reason why I am losing patience with liberals and conservatives. It seems as though both have forgotten that ideology is supposed to be about ideas and principles, not about two teams circling the wagons around “their guys” and trying to get “the other guys.”
It amazes me, by the way, that we are all gleefully wrapped up in this game of verbal “gotcha” while our position in Iraq continues to deteriorate, while we continue to lose ground in Afghanistan, while Iran and North Korea appear to be going nuclear, and while stateless terror groups like Al Qaeda remain a deadly threat.
We. Are. At. War.
And we’re concerned because Kerry might have insulted the troops. Or not.
Well, the guys in my Spanish highschool who ended in the army were not precisely the most brilliant ones…
This is the reason why I am losing patience with liberals and conservatives. It seems as though both have forgotten that ideology is supposed to be about ideas and principles, not about two teams circling the wagons around “their guys” and trying to get “the other guys.”
This is so on-the-nose that it’s actually up a nostril.
What scares me is that 5 days before the mid-term, the media (liberal or not) are making a meal out of this non-story and I find that incredibly sad. No-one went after Rumsfeld for *his* remarks about the soldiers in Iraq – ‘sit back and relax’ – my ášš! As much as I applaud Kerry for standing up and not apologizing, it seems, to me, as though the Democrats are not given any leeway to make mistakes while the Republicans can say and do whatever they want to and not get called on most of it. (See Rumsfeld’s remarks).
The two things I want to comment on, by the same person – awesomeness for the lazy win.
Kip, you said
Wouldn’t that mean, if you get a good education, you can make something of yourself, but if you don’t, then you’ll be stupid enough to vote for Bush and those who put us in Iraq?
That’s sort of twisting it around quite a bit – you certainly have the first part right, so far as that silly empirical stuff goes, but the second doesn’t add up. And for better or worse, our military is more and more made up of people who have no other choice. Who don’t have the high school grades to go on to college on free rides, who can’t afford tuition, or moving, or a host of other things that block access to education. This has been a huge concern for military higher-ups, this lack of education we see in those enlisting.
Our military should not be built on the backs of those who have no other option to improve their life.
Although there is a correlate to education and liberal political leanings, it’s not tied our increasingly underprivileged military. Repeat with me, correlation is not causation.
“My opponent is an idiot, and I approved this ad.” And that sums up the campaigning this year.
And this is why I could never run for office – because that’s basically what my political adverts would say. Did you catch The Daily Show deconstructing political adverts, and then putting them back together into one megaadvert? A quite literal summing up of campaigning this year.
John–I have no argument with the fact that Bush has said stupid things, it’s just that, as far as I can tell, he hasn’t said the stupid thing Ed had in quotation marks, along with the statement “This quote has been repeated many times recently by the President.” If you’re going to say that you should make sure the quote is accurate.
Bill Myers, I’m not going to argue that Bush’s handling of the war hasn’t been a tremendous mess. But I think that kerry ran the most inept campaign ever–and I’ve seen Dole, Mondale and Dukakis, so I’ve seen inept.
The campaign is your entrance exam. It’s the test you take to show you are smart enough for the job. He flunked, spctacularly. Against McCain or any other decent candidate it would have been a rout of biblical proportions. I think a lot of anti-Bush folks fooled themselves into thinking that he was a deep thinker–I can’t say he ever impressed me in that regard.
As to whether or not Bush or kerry is smarter…I’ve long believed that when someone kicks your political ášš you should HOPE that they are smarter than you are. Otherwise you just got your ášš kicked by a moron. Which makes you…what? One reason people–even (or especially) Democrats hold the Democratic party in such low regard is that they have insisted they are smarter than their opponents, even as they lose to these mental pygmies.
The contradiction leads inevitably to phase two–it’s the VOTERS who are morons! Yeah, THAT’LL win those hearts and minds! Given what an illogical strategy that is you have to wonder if maybe they aren’t operating under a very flase assumption.
But in the end…who cares? Kerry vs Bush has been fought. It’s over. I’m sure Kerry wants to try it again but let’s not encourage him. If the Democrats nominate this bøøb one more time it means the Republicans can coast with some empty suit like George Allen, assuming he manages to get his stupid self re-elected.
And for better or worse, our military is more and more made up of people who have no other choice. Who don’t have the high school grades to go on to college on free rides, who can’t afford tuition, or moving, or a host of other things that block access to education. This has been a huge concern for military higher-ups, this lack of education we see in those enlisting.
Boy, That has so not been my experience. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen statistics that show that the military is better educated than the general public. I’ll see if I can dig them up.
Kerry was not helped by some of the far left bloggers who immediately lept to his defense by AGREEING with his supposed statement (which they now say was NOT what he meant to say). There is a small but hard-core group of people still stuck in the anti-military mindset. I don’t think they represent the left in general but then again some of the folks who are now catching undeserved flack have no trouble holding up Jerry Fallwell as a representative of typical conservatives. Karma’s a bìŧçh.
Eh, I’m as anti-Bush as the next guy, but when I heard the statement, I never even conceived that he meant it any other way than “Study hard and get a good job. Otherwise, the military is your only option, which isn’t that great a choice these days.”
I consider it obvious that our military forces are in the worse shape they’ve been since Vietnam, that what used to be a good opportunity for someone without many other options has become the choice of absolute last resort, and that the Reserve and National Guard system will take decades to recover from Bush.
I have no problem with Kerry thinking or saying this; indeed, I think more people should do so.
However, when he does so, takes some flak for it, and then tries to spin it as a personal attack on Bush (which even the version he now claims he was trying to say doesn’t strike me as all that funny), Kerry deserves all the flak he’s taking.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 11:01 AM
Bill Myers, I’m not going to argue that Bush’s handling of the war hasn’t been a tremendous mess. But I think that kerry ran the most inept campaign ever–and I’ve seen Dole, Mondale and Dukakis, so I’ve seen inept.
My friend, forgive me, but I fear you are proving my point for me. You pefunctorily acknowledge Bush’s flaws when prodded, but you eagerly pounce on Kerry at the slightest opportunity. The liberals in this thread are, of course, doing the reverse.
Again, it’s all about circling the wagons, without one iota of discussion about the ideas that supposedly make each side different. It seems as though liberalism and conservatism are no longer labels for meaningful belief systems but are instead names for warring gangs who are fighting over nothing more meaningful than turf.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 11:01 AM
But in the end…who cares?
Well, obviously, you do, as you’ve devoted quite a bit of thought and energy to explaining why Kerry is the bigger dud.
Personally, I think George W. Bush is the worst president we’ve had in decades. I think Ronald Reagan, the elder Bush, and Clinton were all far superior presidents. My disdain for him transcends party politics and personalities. It’s about the paucity of his ideas, and the horrendous results of his stupidity.
I don’t like Kerry, either, Bill. In fact, I’m not sure I like any of the likely Democratic presidential wanna-be’s. I’m a liberal and a registered Democrat but I’m very willing to consider voting for McCain.
Yet it seems like I’m in very tiny minority. It seems as though both liberals and conservatives would rather continue to turn a blind eye to what’s wrong with “their guys” and an equally blind eye to what’s right with “the other guys.”
You know, there was actually a time when ideologies were about ideation.
But the whole point of the matter is that Kerry was right – the lack of education means that a decent salary (and health benefits) is in the military. That nowdays means Iraq. If they get home okay, it also means a college education with a bit of help from the military that they served in. I am not exactly left leaning, but I understood what the man said – and I don’t have a full college education either. I tried to join the Navy during peacetime, but could not meet qualifications, BTW.
We. Are. At. War.
And this is the tagline of the Bush Administration.
We are at war.
Which is why our government should have Gitmo.
Why they should allow torture.
Why they should have secret CIA prisons.
Why they should be allowed to wiretap American citizens.
Why they should be allowed to suspend habeus corpus.
Why you should not question our government.
Should I go on?
“We are at war” is the Bush defense for all of the above and much more.
And it’s why I don’t buy into it.
One would think that, having served his 3 months in Vietnam, Kerry couldn’t possibly have been slamming the military. He certainly didn’t exhibit any of those feelings when he came back from overseas and testified before congress. No sirree.
He wasn’t slamming the military over Vietnam but rather the policy. What’s the problem? (And if you’re refering to the “abuse” issue, well he wasn’t wrong was he?)
Of course, if he was making an education joke about the President, it might have made more of an impact if Kerry had pulled down better grades than Bush did.
This canard again? Bush averaged a 78 and Kerry a 77, and that’s because Kerry bombed out with a bunch of Ds his first year but rallied with much higher marks later. Bush coasted on mediocrity and (arguably) “gentlemen’s Cs” his entire college career. Bush hasn’t displayed any significant intellectual curiosity or critical ability since Yale. There’s a reason he’s occasionally derided as the “faith-based” president.
Personally, I think Kerry knew what he said, knew how it would be interpreted, and did it to “take one for the team” and thus start lathering up the base. But then, maybe I’m just giving him too much credit.
And just what formidable base would he trying to lather? Please . . .
But more importantly, what does any of this have to do with midterms? Neither Kerry or Bush are running and his personal comments really have nothing to do with the current state of affairs.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Should I go on?
No, because what you’ve said is irrelevant. I’ve never advocated any of the things in your list, and acknowledging that we are at war does not force you to accept that torture is a necessity. It doesn’t even force you to support Bush.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM
“We are at war” is the Bush defense for all of the above and much more.
And it’s why I don’t buy into it.
Don’t buy into what?
All I did was articulate a documented fact: we’re at war. In both Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you telling me that’s not the case?
Are you telling me that’s not the case?
Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.
Which is what Bush has been all about.
If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn’t be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.
The most pathetic thing about this, is that Kerry said this when he was stumping for a guy that doesn’t have a chance. Specifically, he was campaiging for Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for California govenor. Schwarznegger is leading by double digits, and the Democrat nominee, Phil Angelides, really doesn’t have a chance. The guy’s a weenie, and his own party isn’t really backing him. So Kerry potentially hurt his party for nothing. Big mouth, with an even bigger foot.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:06 PM
Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.
To be fair, I never used the phrase “how dare we.” I merely expressed amazement that we are arguing over Kerry’s syntax while the nation is at war.
If you’d like, choose another issue of national or global importance: the economy, embryonic stem cell research, pollution, whatever. I’d argue that there are a host of other issues that deserve attention far more than Kerry’s gaffe. I believe my point still stands, even if you remove the “drumbeat of war” and substitute another problem of pressing significance.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:06 PM
If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn’t be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.
I guess I’d rather not shy away from advancing what seems to me to be a rational argument merely because it superficially resembles something the “opposition” said.
To be fair, I never used the phrase “how dare we.”
No, you didn’t, but you did say “it amazes me”, which isn’t that far removed.
Yeah, I’m pretty pìššëd about the situation in Iraq as well, but I can’t see how emphasising the whole “we are at war” helps your position. Maybe it’s just me.
I guess I’d rather not shy away from advancing what seems to me to be a rational argument merely because it superficially resembles something the “opposition” said.
Well, half the battle is that war leads to irrationality from all sides – that has been pretty evident in any discussion involving Iraq.
I just don’t think you can go around throwing out “we are at war” line without it involving the details of why we are involved in the war, and what has happened as a result of the war.
Yes, “we are at war” evokes the whole triviality of other things, but it also evokes the hard questions which are, contrary to what you say, very relevent imo.
Here is a quote by Bush.
“However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,”
If the Democrats win, the terrorist win. You don’t find this more outragous than a botched joke?
1
Peter,
The report is that the joke WAS scripted for Kerry and it read something like, “You know what happens if you don’t do your home work and don’t study in school? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”
Bob
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 1, 2006 12:24 PM
Yes, “we are at war” evokes the whole triviality of other things, but it also evokes the hard questions which are, contrary to what you say, very relevent imo.
Craig, the issues you brought up are very relevant in any discussion about the war. They were merely irrelevant to the only point I was trying to make: that we have more important things to discuss than Kerry’s syntax. That’s it. No more. No less.
I’ve never argued in favor of torture, or wiretapping, or any of that crap.
Again, I was merely trying to point out that Kerry’s gaffe is pretty trivial compared to the other stuff we need to discuss.
And my amazement is just that: amazement. I would never presume to question how people “dare” to choose to discuss this or that. I may express an opinion about it, but I would never question their right to have the discussion. I believe very passionately that freedom of speech is the very foundation of our democracy.
Craig, the way I read Bill’s initial post was that this whole thing with Kerry’s joke/not-joke isn’t what everyone in DC should be worrying about while American troops are overseas fighting. I don’t think, the way I read it, that the fact “We. Are. At. War.” is meant to give a free pass to anything that you named. But again, that’s just the way I read it.
The thing that’s really dangerous with any “news reporting” is that you don’t seem to get the COMPLETE story. This particular story illustrates that REALLY well. Taken just on it’s own, without either the rest of Kerry’s speech around it or the context in which it was said, it would seem that Kerry is slamming the troops and cutting on their intellect. Every report that I’ve seen is a reactionary “OOOOH! Did you hear what Kerry said about the troops?” story, not “Here’s the speech, here’s all of what he said.” For an historical allegory, think of the Gettysburg Address. If all the reporters then had only focused on the first line, the reports would’ve been “Lincoln ignores death in Pennsylvania, only worried about how old the country is.” There are too many pundits on too many networks scrambling around to get their own POV across.
He wasn’t slamming the military over Vietnam but rather the policy.
I don’t know…an awful lot of vets felt differently. It’s a sore point at any rate and a smarter man would be careful not to feed the perception of animus.
Bush averaged a 78 and Kerry a 77, and that’s because Kerry bombed out with a bunch of Ds his first year but rallied with much higher marks later.
If he had just one more semester! But, life is what it is and he will just have to live with having a lower GPA than George Bush. You snooze, you lose. Maybe he should have used himself as an example to the students.
But the whole point of the matter is that Kerry was right – the lack of education means that a decent salary (and health benefits) is in the military. That nowdays means Iraq.
So is Kerry lying now when he tries to blame others for deliberately misinterpreting him? Hëll, I don’t even like the guy but I’m willing to take his word for it that it was a lame joke awkwardly delivered. Your interpretation make him every bit the military basher his opponents call him and a liar to boot.
You pefunctorily acknowledge Bush’s flaws when prodded, but you eagerly pounce on Kerry at the slightest opportunity.
Probably so, but why can’t I have some fun? A fellow can call Bush President Chimpy McHitlerburton with nary a word of protest raised but I playfully suggest that Kerry is dumb as a paperbag full of fog and suddenly I’m the problem? Huh! Fair and balanced my fanny…
Besides, I want to try to stop y’all from nominating him again. It’s for your own good. Don’t tell me you won’t, I know you guys. Slept with Dean, married Kerry, woke up with Bush…
Your comment leads to the line of thinking of how dare we discuss other things in life because we are at war, that we should think of nothing else.
Craig, that’s not fair to Bill at all. The comment is what it is, it doesn’t lead to anything. You’re making a huge leap.
If I were in your shoes, I certainly wouldn’t be using a Bush tagline as a means of supporting an argument, regardless of how far removed from Bush is seems to be.
Blindly rejecting something because Bush may agree with it is as bad as blindly accepting it for the same reason.
Bill Myers –
Again, I was merely trying to point out that Kerry’s gaffe is pretty trivial compared to the other stuff we need to discuss.
Alright. I guess I read too much into it. I just don’t like the phrase in general (obviously).
Bill Mulligan –
Maybe he should have used himself as an example to the students.
You’re right, he should have: as just one example, he speaks far more intelligently than Bush, which just goes to show how little an Ivy League education means with some people.
It certainly means very little with George “Is our children learning” Bush.
Blindly rejecting something because Bush may agree with it is as bad as blindly accepting it for the same reason.
I reject it, but I far from do it blindly, which makes the premise of your argument pretty flawed.
Taking Kerry’s comment at face value, without knowing or bothering to check the context of it would be doing so blindly.
But knowing what the phrase “We are at war” means, and how it has been used by politicians? No, that is not blind acceptance or rejection, not in the least.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 12:50 PM
Probably so, but why can’t I have some fun? A fellow can call Bush President Chimpy McHitlerburton with nary a word of protest raised but I playfully suggest that Kerry is dumb as a paperbag full of fog and suddenly I’m the problem? Huh! Fair and balanced my fanny…
Bill, I never singled you out as “the problem” in any way, shape, or form. I was taking to task liberals and conservatives. Did I not point out that liberals are as soft on Kerry as conversatives are on Rumsfeld for their respective gaffes? Did I not say I was considering a vote for McCain for president (assuming he gets the Republican nomination)?
I really am trying to argue about ideas. It’s not personal. I hope you’re not taking it that way.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 1, 2006 12:50 PM
Don’t tell me you won’t, I know you guys. Slept with Dean, married Kerry, woke up with Bush…
And Republicans turned their noses up at McCain in favor of Bush, even though McCain would likely have handled the war on terror with more resolve, courage, wisdom, and intelligence than Bush could ever hope to bring to bear. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: neither party has reason to feel smug these days.
Some more right wingers piling on poor Johnny K:
Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee
Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland
Kerry campaign appearances in Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania were canceled.
A spokesman for Democratic congressional candidate Bruce Braley in Iowa said Braley had decided independently to cancel an event with Kerry scheduled for Thursday.
Kerry spokesman David Wade confirmed he no longer would appear at a Philadelphia rally on Wednesday for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Casey
“Sen. Kerry’s remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid,” said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns. “He owes our troops and their families an apology.”
All he had to do was admit at the very beginning that he misspoke and move on. But he is so fixated on not appearing weak that he overreacted, attacked, attacked, attacked, and looked like the last possible person who should ever be president.
If–and I would rate this as INCREDIBLY unlikely–the Republicans manage to keep the House, Kerry should just pack it up. He will get the blame, fair or not. (and if the Democrats manage to lose this one they will be LIVID. Ready to form a circular firing squad. Heads will roll. I know one Senator who will be watching the results very very carefully.
All he had to do was admit at the very beginning that he misspoke and move on.
There’s an article up on Yahoo atm saying that Kerry has apologized (sort of). It has the following:
“”I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I’m sorry about a botched joke,” Kerry, who had refused to apologize on Tuesday, said on the “Imus in the Morning” radio show on MSNBC.”
Probably as close as your going to get, with news places referring to this as “Kerry apologizes”.
And, it shouldn’t shock anybody if the political response to this is “that’s not good enough”.
As for the Democratic response, well, I can only shake my head. They, just like the Republicans, are more than willing to fall overthemslves to stab a fellow in the back if it gains them political points.
and if the Democrats manage to lose this one they will be LIVID.
Well, they’d have only themselves to blame. Not Kerry, but themselves as a whole.
And Republicans turned their noses up at McCain in favor of Bush, even though McCain would likely have handled the war on terror with more resolve, courage, wisdom, and intelligence than Bush could ever hope to bring to bear.
I know, I know…I never back the winning guy. Hopefully McCain will get another crack at it.
(in fairness to the republicans who did not support MCain, I suspect the result might have been very different if there had been a war on at the time of the nomination race).
I’m not taking any of this personal, don’t worry about me. With all the good stuff happening these last few weeks I’m giddy as a schoolgirl (nothing to do with politics, thank God). Anyway, I know you so even if you insulted me to my face I’d just assume it was with a smile (ok, there’s your opportunity…)