October 31, 2006
Kerry.
The John Kerry "stuck in Iraq" story is dominating the news today. It's rather unfair to the Democrats who are actually running in the election. I'd love to hear the behind-the-scenes cursing he so richly deserves. (And let me add that Kerry is outrageously lying when he says he wasn't referring to the troops. This is only prolonging his time in the spotlight, when he should get out of the way and let actual candidates speak.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
111 comments:
and why is he making so many campaign appearances for Democratic candidates so far from Mass.?
I'm sorry, Ann, but he was obviously referring to Bush. The preceding comments were all about Bush's incompetence and denial. He wasn't really trying to encourage students to do well so they won't have to enlist. "Outrageously lying"? Please.
I think the biggest problem the Democrat's have right now is their tendency to circle the wagons whenever one of their own is attacked.
I think this is a great opportunity for a number of Sister Souljah moments (man, there's a woman whose career has peaked) in Congressional districts all over. I think doing so would secure the Dem's the independent vote, the guys who want to punish the Republicans but just aren't sure they can trust the Democrat's not to all turn into John Murtha's.
But, I don't really see them figuring that out until it's too late.
Doyle:
Yeah, and his comments in 1971 were really attacks on Pres. Nixon..OK I get it.
But who was he "really" attacking in 2005 when he attacked our troops?
Gerry: He's hogging the spotlight for his own '08 reasons. It shouldn't be about him. I'm sure everyone's mightily pissed off at him, and he's too stubborn to apologize properly.
Doyle: If that were so, we wouldn't have this problem now. I've heard the whole context.
Ann, I think that the ultimate in conclusory statements, i.e., that Kerry was "outrageously lying" requires some support. On what do you base that, other than your well documented loathing of John Kerry? Have you looked at the context in which he made that comment? Or was your reaction a reflex?
Well at least you left the headline at "Kerry" this time Ann.
The preceding comments were all about Bush's incompetence and denial. He wasn't really trying to encourage students to do well so they won't have to enlist.
I would be willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt regarding this, but for all the other disparaging statements Kerry has made in his life about the troops. His remarks are a huge political mistake. He reminds us of what the Democrats think about the military.
Really though.... how can Kerry's remarks mean anything about Bush....maybe you could argue that if Kerry was in charge the "dumb asses in the military (as Kerry would say) would at least be at home waiting to be attacked rather than in Iraq.
It's rather unfair to the Democrats who are actually running in the election.
Maybe, except most democrats aren't saying anthing about anything. They are running on Foley and anti-bush.
I'll be quite frank.
When I first heard of the possibility that the joke was a mangled attempt to malign Bush, I was willing to believe it. In fact I still am. I mean, as stated, it is quite categorical in identifying the object of its ridicule: so much so that the context is irrelevant. But, at least the explanation itself is consistent with the context.
Then he had his Captain Queeg press conference.
After that, I frankly don't give a rats ass what his true motivation was. He wasn't even man enough to apologize for the misunderstanding! He said that anyone who would think he was maligning the troops was crazy. That would include many members of the military! Well, congratulations Kerry, you did it again.
At this point he deserves everything he gets. He could have apologized humbly, and even followed it up with his standard Iraq policy objections, and it could have stopped the bleeding. But he chose not to, so there's nobody to blame but him here.
So yes, I'm saying I don't care anymore if the mangled joke excuse is true. He's lost his opportunity to convince me he deserves grace.
Ann, I think that the ultimate in conclusory statements, i.e., that Kerry was "outrageously lying" requires some support.
Wait...am I missing something? Didn't Kerry become famous by bashing the American Soldier?
What is new....
The fact is Kerry is typical of the elites in the Democratic party. They know nothing about the military except that they utterly despise the institution as a bunch of baby killers.
He should go skiing in Gstaad, or something. Anything to get him away from the USA.
If the Democrats don't get the House, though, at least he can be blamed, and won't that be great for his '08 aspirations?
The man is very quotable, you have to give him that. "I owe an apology to no one" will be the most memorable line of the 2006 campaign, just as "I voted for the $80 billion before I voted against it," and "Reporting for duty!" were in 2004.
I realize that in his mind, he was probably trying to take a shot at Bush, and that it came out screwy. We all do that. So then, why NOT apologize? What, other than the man's monumental vanity, kept him from saying "I'm sorry if what I said was misconstrued."
The preface to the remarks that I heard was all about education. It's charitable to Kerry to say it was "obviously" about Bush.
What I assume will happen now is that Dem candidates all over the country will be asked to "disavow" Kerry's remarks. Second news cycle consumed. Then, finally, the stupid prick will realize he really should apologize, and will do so. Third news cycle consumed. There aren't that many left.
If Democrats like John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wes Clark, John Murtha, Jim Webb and the countless other Democrats in Iraq currently hate the military so much, why did/do they volunteer to go? Are they just insane masochists with a deathwish?
Silver lining for the Democrats: this ought to put an end to Kerry's presidential aspirations.
And if all goes exceedingly well, they'll lose the midterms elections, too.
For doyle, gj, and all the others trying to defend Kerry, the problem with his claim that he was trying to make a joke about Bush is that his claim does not make any sense. The context of his remarks was he was talking to college students and stressing the importance of getting a good education. His argument was, in essence: If you do well in school, something good happens (get a good job). If you don't, something bad happens (you go to Iraq). Even if you accept his claim he intended the second half of that couplet to be a slam on Bush, his joke makes no sense in the context of encouraging kids to do well in school. The reworked argument becomes: If you do well in school, something good happens (get a good job). If you don't, something bad happens (you become President of the USA). Yea. That'll scare the kids into doing well in school!
If that were so, we wouldn't have this problem now.
Oh really? You don't think maybe Republicans have a particular desire to portray Kerry as unsympathetic to the troops?
He has this problem because he omitted the word "us" which would have made the reference unambiguous. I agree that had he included that word, he would not be accused of having insulted the troops.
I'm not sure this thing is necessarily a minus for the Democrats in '06 (or Kerry in '08 although I don't see that happening). Anything that raises the intensity of debate on Iraq is to our advantage.
P.S. Sloan, Kerry was an American Soldier.
his joke makes no sense in the context of encouraging kids to do well in school.
Of course it does. "Go to school so you won't be as dumb as the president." It's not especially funny, but neither is the idea that it's largely the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder that dies in wars, which would be the premise of the other (I claim nonexistent) joke.
To repeat, I've seen the video of the whole context, and it's obvious what he was saying. His attempt to interpret it away is outrageous. It only makes it worse. I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.
I couldn't believe he was nominated...I thought he and the vegan were the weakest. Maybe its a Skull and Bones (and Rove) conspiracy!
I think Ann is right that Kerry was slighting the troops. But I also think Kerry had prepared his response to the White House before he did so. And I think he used an ambiguous phrasing so that the White House would catapult him into the spotlight.
This is Kerry's Clinton Fox News moment: instant WaPo and NYT coverage, bickering with Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and President Bush, drawing out John McCain, and he's putting out really nasty stuff about the GOP that's red meat for nutty liberals who hate the military.
There is some value to the Democrats of Kerry's attacks on Bush and Snow. There is some value to their get out the vote operation. (Frankly, smart Democrats in close races could denounce Kerry to present themselves as legitimate centrists...) And, of course, there is Kerry stealing spotlight from Hillary on the national stage.
He might hurt 2006. But if the Democrats taking over is "inevitable" anyway, then he can claim that standing up to Bush was part of the reason why. He can say he energized the base. LOL.
So, I'm not so sure Kerry made an accident. It might backfire, but I think it was purposeful. In short, I think everyone's theories behind his motives are correct (except those who say he didn't intend to slight the troops).
Doyle sparked me to think of something. If I were a Democratic political consultant or talking head, I'd push the idea that his statements were "all within the context of how this Bush Presidency thinks. He made remarks that I don't agree with, and feel were inappropriate. He was referring to the Bush mentality. I think John Kerry should consider his sentences more closely, but in no way was this a blast at the troops. I thinks he feels that this current path we are on leads to another Vietnam, another draft."
Honestly, I agree with this.
...but I didn't see the video.
I'm on a slow connection at the library... I may not agree with this when I go home and watch it.
I think it's all just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse, Sean Hannity, and the entire right blogosphere's version of the events are exactly the same. This, over the person that made the statement.
Just because their version of what was in Kerry's head, benefits their side in their view, has nothing to do with it.
Ann, what am I thinking right now?
I think this is a great opportunity for a number of Sister Souljah moments (man, there's a woman whose career has peaked) in Congressional districts all over.
Exactly.
I see that strident partisans are once more stepping up to defend the indefensible and guaranteeing further distraction from the real issues in the election.
Or maybe not - maybe they are revealing their "true nature" and those of the candidates they support, as Kerry did. (?) It depends on one's point of view, I guess.
Having viewed the video before and since the sh*t hit the fan, I believe that, once again, John Stodder and Ann have it right.
Outrageous is claiming that because you, along with the rest of us, saw the video, the intepretation that the joke was directed at Bush is obviously the wrong one. Even tonight's Republican strategist on Hardball admitted it's possible that's what he was trying to say.
Yes, the soldiers who are fighting and getting killed in Iraq are disproportionately non-college graduates, but that doesn't mean that even an America-hating Democrat would insult them for it. I mean who among us doesn't at least pay lip service to supporting the troops?
Doyle, Bush reportedly got better grades in school than did Kerry. So, the only way for his 'joke' to be funny or even sane, would have been in a self-deprecating way with Bush the one getting good grades, and he (Kerry) bad grades. Bush President, Kerry not. Funny.
But the above is moot point. Kerry said what he wanted to say. His statement and resultant lack of mea culpa fits his M.O., his history, and unfortunately, many in his party like a glove.
Also, Kerry is the pentultimate Democrat. He was their ultimate candidate and undoubtedly wants to be again. The furor over Kerry's statements are part of the price the other candidates pay for being Democrats.
Ok, I was way off:
Mr. Kerry said that he botched a joke that his aides said had been prepared as follows: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.”(NYTIMES)
Kerry's jokes, strategies and speech writers don't belong in American politics.
I won't even watch the video. The funniest thing is is that you would never hear Bush say anything as negative as what he said OR the intended joke.
To me, the best strategy for the Democrats is to put enormous pressure on Kerry to apologize very soon.
There's a lot of astute political thinking going on in this thread.
Surely it would be better for Kerry to admit that he was casting aspersions on our men and women in uniform, and apologize to them publicly. That would be much better than digging in and hitting back at the right wing warmongers, especially given the lessons of the Swift Boat Veterans.
One commenter above asks, "what's the basis of your knowledge that he was 'outrageously lying'?"
Actually, this study seems to say he was lying, and that the average enlistee is slightly wealthier and better educated than his peers:
"In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) support the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers."
Just because their version of what was in Kerry's head, benefits their side in their view, has nothing to do with it.
You are forgetting, it also best corresponds with Kerry's previous pattern of behavior.
Let's face it, this "man" made his career on sliming our troops, and was still doing it as late as 2005.
The burden of proof lies on his part to show why this isn't just more of the same despicable insults he has been making for over 30 years.
To me, the best strategy for the Democrats is to put enormous pressure on Kerry to apologize very soon.
Exactly. But Kerry's best strategy is to continue claiming that the White House purposely distorted his comments.
JohnF: you are truly out of it. The question is whether Kerry was lying about his explanation that he was referring to Bush and not the troops.......NOT whether the troops are truly less educated. Get a clue.
Fenrisulven: Maybe if you went to school you would know what non-sequitur means.
Kerry says..."if you're intellectually lazy"
Who do you really think he was referring to - our troops, or Bush? (whom much better fits the descpr)
Has *anyone* ever heard those words before, when discussing our troops and their background? Or young people in general.
Doyle, you seem to be stuck in "black & white" thinking. There was a gracious (and politically smart) way out for Kerry. He chose not to take it.
Fenris -
That was my explanation of the gist of the joke, not something I was expressing as an opinion. Rightly or wrongly (especially in Kerry-friendly audiences) Bush is considered stupid.
dcwilly,
You are right that I misread what Ann said. I'm glad I did not confuse you.
For the record, this was a public campaign event for Phil Angelides, who is running for Governor of California (and running way behind)and meant to attract attention to Angelides, not Kerry. It was meant to gain much-needed attention for Angelides on the local news stations. (Fat lot of good that did.)
Fenris: LOL. Really, no, you don't know what it means. Nice try -- you are warm -- I'll give you that. It means something that does not follow from the preceding statement. Not a "rhetorical fallacy. Sorry.
Here's the NY Times' coverage of the byplay.
http://tinyurl.com/ygj4sc
It is a classic illustration of Mickey Kaus' cocooning metaphor. Reading Nagourney and Rutenberg, you'd have to conclude that Kerry slandered the troops in Iraq deliberately, as part of a clever scheme to lure Bush out of the White House to talk about that unpopular war -- at a time, by golly, when even a staunch Republican like Lincoln Chaffee has been criticizing it.
The Kerry quote itself appears deep in the text of the story. If you knew nothing about what has transpired, which the NY Times is obviously counting on, you'd think that dumb idiot Bush just decided that, because campaigning against Kerry was such a good deal in 2004, he'd give it another try in 2006.
Democrats, please, some friendly advice: Do not believe this crap. Campaign like the Kerry quote was extremely damaging. Because it was.
Doyle,
Take a deep breath. Calm down son. Kerry has stepped in it. Only he can clean his boots. He's costing the Dem's votes--but how many?
Lots. The only rational play is a clear (however fake) apology.
We'll see one tomorrow.
The problem Democrats have is that the Democratic party has no national defense credentials. They have to peddle out veterans and "war heroes" to jam their phoney hawkish views at voters. They have a few tokens left over from a bygone era such was Jim Webb. However, most democrats and most of their constituents remain doves. Kerry's remarks are just another example and reminder to voters who are worried about the security of the United States. If Democrats despise the troops, how can we expect them to lead the troops.
Putting the spotlight on Kerry for the next week will remind voters, especially independents that Democrats are weak. A great example is the detainee bill...the so called "torture" bill. Many people say they vehemently oppose torture and would always say so... however, who would you want on your side if your life depended on it - a guy who would consider torturing as a last resort... or someone who has "principles." regardless of your life. Most people pick the first guy and there are a lot more first guys in the Republican party.
John Stodder:
Campaign like the Kerry quote was extremely damaging. Because it was.
Yep. I'll bet the commercials start running tomorrow in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, etc.
If Democrats despise the troops, how can we expect them to lead the troops[?]
If Democrats despised the troops, they wouldn't be criticizing the Iraq War. You couldn't come up with a worse punishment than sending them into Iraq and telling them to sit tight until the Shia and Sunnis work out their differences.
I don't think he's lying, and I don't think he meant the troops. It's worse than that. The guy had a joke, was loaded and ready to go, and misfired. He's a klutz and a screwup. There's only one good thing that will come of this: Kerry will not get the nomination in 2008. I hope it means he won't even get enough support to consider running again. If this is his swan song, I'm happy. Democrats ought to be saying as much right now: if he said what he meant to say, he's an idiot. If he meant to say what he claims, he's a dud.
Since Phil Angelides was the reason Sen. Kerry was speaking at PCC it could reasonably be assumed that Angelides would defend Kerry. But that particular fig leaf has not been offered and Angelides has become deathly quiet on the issue.
FWIW: Eight of the nine Iraq War veterans running for Congress are running as Democrats.
I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.
I have to disagree, Ann. I'm anti-Iraq, not anti-war in general. I grew up in a military family, members of my family currently serve, and I have no such beliefs about who enlists in the military. I teach excellent students who are in the military or reserves.
It's true that the military is an effective vehicle for upward mobility and a logical choice for working or lower-economic class people who want help paying for their education or job skills, but not only is it more diverse than that, it would be foolish to argue that lower-economic class translates into too dumb to do anything but join the military.
I can't know Kerry's motivations, but I sure can say that opposing this war is not synonymous with patronizing or despising our armed forces.
Has *anyone* ever heard those words before, when discussing our troops and their background? Or young people in general.
Yes, we have. For years, critics of the military have claimed that only the poorest and dumbest serve. (Indeed, doyle, in this comment thread has twice come very close to saying this is very thing.) Rangle in 2004 was calling for a draft, in part, so the human cost of the war would not be borne entirely by the poor. Democrats are frequently saying that our troops are victims of Bush's policies. Since the majority of the military has joined or reenlisted since the start of the war, the clear implication is that the troops are just too stupid to know any better. (This is similar to the common refrain that the poor and middle class are voting against their self-interest by voting for Republicans. Again, the implication is that these voters are too stupid to know what's good for them.)
So, yes, it was entirely plausible to believe Kerry meant what he said. It was the kind of thing politicians said to students during Vietnam. Most of what Kerry says is simply an echo of those years, so it's not unreasonable to believe he still feels that way.
Reading Nagourney and Rutenberg, you'd have to conclude that Kerry slandered the troops in Iraq deliberately, as part of a clever scheme to lure Bush out of the White House to talk about that unpopular war
Hey, I'm a Bush supporter, and I think that's an accurate read. I also think that Bush & Co. relied on Krauthammer's op-ed to extricate themselves from the Miers debacle.
You cannot be reasonable and think Kerry just wanted to help the nerd running against Arnold. Everyone knows scrawny Phil has no shot. At the very least he was campaigning in CA for 2008. At the most, he was doing exactly what the NYT's suggests, which really isn't a loopy theory at all, because Kerry values his own 2008 run more than Democratic control of Congress.
What centrist Democrats running in close races need to do is denounce Kerry (or demand that he apologize) and side with the troops. They need to face the fact that Kerry is a mercenary who is only out for himself and use it to distinguish themselves from the strident antiwar position (which they claim not to support anyhow).
I just find this whole situation amusing! Do you really think Kerry just made an accident so close to Eelection Day? Be more cynical, folks!
Elizabeth: I'm with you! The faster he goes the better.
I believe that Kerry just made a mistake in the wording of his "joke". But what a crass "joke" for a former presidential candidate to make! He basically says that Bush is stupid, intellectually lazy, and a poor student. It's one thing for the Democratic partisans, the students, the bloggers, and so on to say stuff like that. It's another for a man who's supposed to have some statesmanlike gravitas, some dignity. I agree with the comment that Bush has never said anything that crude about an opponent.
Of course someone will point out the Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, say crude stuff - true, but they are not statesmen and don't presume to be.
So it's kind of satisfying that Kerry made a blooper that happens to play exactly into the stereotype of liberal contempt for servicemen. He really didn't intend it as an insult to servicemen, but it came out that way, and it was poetic justice that it did.
If he'd give up insulting people and discuss issues, it wouldn't have been a problem. And then he makes it worse by WAY over-reacting to it.
During the recent Lebanon war, there was a great Israeli commentary reviewing something said in the always pro-Arab Guardian, taking it apart, but, in the end offering congratulations to the clever propaganda effort for the Israelis, the Guardian's remarks subtly revealing that it's position was that of a buffoon, and that the reporter would get their Israeli medal in a secret ceremony at the end of the conflict. Heh, you know John doesn't have the Medal of Freedom. Reporting for Medal (duty by the paperwork) again, ehh John!
Oh, and I love that Kerry just made himself the national Democrat poster boy for the last week of the election. Just what the Democrats needed - everyone identifying Kerry with the Democrats again. Now all they need to do is get Jimmy Carter, Monica Lewinsky, and maybe Michael Dukakis in his tank helmet out there on the front pages and they'll have managed to botch up yet another election cycle.
Yep. I'll bet the commercials start running tomorrow in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, etc.
Oh, of course. That's the beauty.
Kerry will stay in the news and keep making comments in the press -- this story is going to continue until Nov. 7th. Reporters are going to keep bugging Democrats about it.
The only thing for centrist Democrats to do is get out ahead of it and denounce Kerry. They'll have a much larger megaphone than they would have had otherwise, and a ripe shot at appealing to independents by denouncing Kerry.
It will certainly blunt/make incredible attacks that attempt to show Candidate X is weak by tying him/her to Kerry if s/he denounced Kerry all over the press.
Plus, now turnout on both sides is going to be absolutely massive and the election may be national, instead of local as many Republicans would prefer.
Just who gets the benefit is unclear. It's in flux.
DavidW
I've never heard "intellectually lazy" when describing the backgrounds of our troops. This is why I think alot of people are way out ahead of this. He was clearly talking about Bush, (as he was before this remark!)
If you're intellectually lazy, (Bush) you will get stuck in Iraq (which we are)
Bad joke all around though.
Bush is stupid, intellectually lazy, and a poor student.
Boy that really is crass, especially coming from a traitor like John Kerry.
Democrats in general read way too much into Bush's aversion to newspapers. I mean he reads Camus for Chrissakes.
One more thing: Even if Kerry meant to say something different, he should own up to what he said and apologize. Unlike all the Republicans and Democrats who have said things that, from certain angles might seem to be insulting to some group or another (recall the outrage over Romney's use of the term "tar-baby"?), Kerry actually said something that cannot be understood in any way other than as an insult. The best he can claim is that he meant to say something else -- but he needs to apologize for what he did say.
Garage,
I don't think your brand of liberal spin is going to work. But I will say that Kerry was throwing out red meat for the likes of you! You're sure to vote now! And indignantly, too! Go DailyKos! [racuous laughter]
Yeah, but if centrist Democrats in close races rally around Kerry and his lie about not intentionally slighting the troops, they will lose terribly. They're just going to have to step up and agree with McCain and the head of the American Legion if they want to win. And I suspect they're debating how to do that without offending Kerry (and antiwar stalwarts) too much...uh, right this minute.
Really, we should be watching for what McCaskill, Ford, and Webb do.
The base is livid. Maybe enough now to keep the House out of Dem hands.
This is what I'm saying. If centrist Democrats sit on this, they lose.
I wonder if this fares well for Santorum, or whether he's destined to lose, anyway. And I wonder if Casey will still appear with Kerry as scheduled.
Problem is those denouncements won't be unequivocal. They'll find a way to slip in a Bush jab and come across as phoney.
That's actually a great point. If they do that, you're absolutely right.
This is why I noted before that the best thing for Democrats to do is attack Kerry for degrading the troops during wartime while Kerry refuses to apologize and keeps attacking Bush for "distorting" his comments.
I think it can be safely done, though, without jabbing Bush, by simply agreeing with John McCain and the head of the American Legion. It's gonna take more than canceling events. It requires an explicit statement. They can't be coy.
We'll see. Either way, this is mighty amusing.
Mortimer: Santorum is toast - he is basically losing to "None of the Above." It seems to me that it is very hard to overestimate Casey's acumen.
"UPDATE: Kerry will attend a DFL fundraiser at the St. Paul Hotel at 8:30 tomorrow morning. At noon, he will be in Mankato with Democrat Tim Wald at a "veterans' rally." That should be something to see! It would be nice if some protesters, veterans and others, turn up at these events.
LOL!!!! I told you so! Kerry's gonna keep attacking Bush and refuse to apologize!
FURTHER UPDATE: Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley has canceled his scheduled campaign event with Kerry. Braley termed Kerry's comments about our soldiers "inappropriate."
Yep. And centrist Democrats are going to distance themselves and issue clear statements. But they need to say more than "inappropriate" if they want to win.
Hey, where did you get this info, Fen?
Mortimer: Santorum is toast - he is basically losing to "None of the Above."
Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking. To be honest, I was very impressed with his work on Social Security; he really did put all options on the table, master the subject matter, and try to implement change that would be good for our future. Very sad. He's an excellent Senator. One of the few guys not in it for the cash. Sad that he goes down with "culture of corruption".
The best he can claim is that he meant to say something else -- but he needs to apologize for what he did say.
I agree. There aren't any second chances here. I don't care what he intended to say; he blew that chance at the time, so he has to deal with what he did say.
If his campaign is presenting an accurate quote of what was in the speech, it was still manifestly stupid. Why take a chance with such a joke?
Edward: It is not about people people changing votes (although some will). The name of the game is turnout. This late in the game, it is unwise to wave red meat around previously apathetic / dispirited supporters of one's opponents - they may bite.
I agree. There aren't any second chances here.
I think you're falsely assuming Kerry's interests are aligned with those of other Democrats. He likes hogging the antiwar lefty spotlight to bicker with Bush. That is great for Kerry. How else is he going to run to the left of Hillary and beat Russ Feingold in 2008?
Internet Ronin is right (w.r.t. Edward's comment). You thought the GOP GOTV effort was running well before? To quote a certain TV chef, this is going to kick it up a notch. Or two. Or ten.
Santorum is the absolute worst Senator Pennsylvanians have burdened themselves with in my memory. Maybe Joseph Clark was worse, given his embrace of gun control in a state where hunting is everywhere. Maybe Santorum'd be better if he actually, you know, lived in Pennsylvania. Did he ever pay back the Penn Hills School District for the money he essentially stole from them?
Not in it for the cash indeed. Pull the other one.
Agreed. Great comment, Ronin.
But you can't ignore that lefty antiwar people might be ginned up a bit, too. Democrats are scared their GOTV isn't as good as the Republicans'. Kerry's comment could have been directed at African-Americans, whose turnout Dems are worried about. In general, the black community hates the war and believes most of the people sucked into serving in the military are at least poor, if not poor minorities.
Actually, now that I think about it, the "effort to be smart" comments are probably signs of Kerry's inept pandering at the black community, which cares strongly about education, oft conceives of the military as a racist deathtrap, and hates the Iraq War.
Take a breath.
I said inept. I'm not validating the implicit stereotype.
Edward - As you obviously live in such a pretty little world of pure blacks and whites, it would be a shame to intrude on it any further.
Rob, there is another way to look at it: Kerry meant to tell the joke, but the joke was so close to what he really thinks that what he said is what he thought but not what he meant. I think most people call that a Freudian slip, and that most people will think that is exactly what happened if he persists with the joke defense.
I'm willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume he's still nothing more than a tin-eared boob. Then again, let's just remember the people who nominated his for the Presidency could well control Congress in a few months... don't know about you, but if I was a swing voter in a margin of error race, I'd be muttering 'a plague on all your houses' and staying home. And that can't be good for the Dems.
Ann Althouse can read minds. That's why she can say Kerry was "lying" when he says he was talking about Bush.
Even Dick Armey and Matthew Dowd think Kerry meant Bush.
But that Ann? She knows better. She knows John Kerry thinks the troops are stupid.
She knows that Kerry doesn't use this applause line everywhere he goes, and just muffed it.
"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." - Senator John Kerry
Ann, you're the liar. You know NOTHING of the sort.
I'm surprised at the number of people who don't believe Kerry's explanation for his gaffe. I mean, I hate the dufus, but I find the explanation too clever NOT to be true. Could he really have intended to slam the troops, but then upon getting caught, turn it into a plausible Bush-is-dumb joke? C'mon! That'd be impressively nimble politicking, which we know Kerry to be incapable of.
Has anyone been able to check and see if Kerry has used this illustration in other recent college appearances?
Since politicians so often rely on another form of a "stump speech" as they tour for other candidates, there may be a version of what he "meant" to say already out there. . .
It was reported about 90 minutes ago that Kerry has cancelled all of his Wednesday's appearances, including with Bob Casey in PA. I'm sorry for Santorum - he would have riden a photo of Kerry and Casey together into a horserace.
Could he really have intended to slam the troops, but then upon getting caught, turn it into a plausible Bush-is-dumb joke? C'mon! That'd be impressively nimble politticking, which we know Kerry to be incapable of.
Not true. Kerry has nimble nuance. Say it all with me now: I voted for it before I voted against it.
Senator "I won't take any crap from those who haven't worn the uniform" Kerry, Meet the Press, December 4, 2005:
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
Statement from The Governor of Massachusetts (John Kerry's state):
“Senator Kerry owes an apology to the thousands of men and women serving in Iraq, particularly the many patriotic soldiers from Massachusetts who come from all backgrounds to defend our freedoms. As Governor, I represent thousands of Massachusetts National Guardsmen. They are more diverse, educated and prepared to do their job than at anytime in our country’s history. No matter where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, most people understand the strength of our nation comes from every corner of America.”
Of course Mitt Romney is going to denounce Kerry. He's running for President in 2008 and McCain is already out of the gate. It will be interesting to see if any Democrats, e.g., Ford, McCaskill, or Webb, denounce Kerry.
I sure do love the smell of moronic brownshirt fucks crapping in their pants.
You pricks are toast. Deal with it.
I will grant that Kerry mean to tell a joke about Bush, but that's not how it came out. Especially when seen on the video, it really comes out as a slam against the troops. Given his "Winter Soldier" attitude (more on that later) this slip of the tongue is, for me, rather telling.
That aside, I think he could have stood and apologized with a simple sentence--no non-apologetic "I'm sorry, but..." nonsense. (Am I the only one who finds qualified apologies rather bogus?)
Instead, he stood and lost his mind. Yes, what he said will resonate with the Bush-hating left, but it will alienate everyone else. Beyond the fact that his speech was redundant and poorly delivered, he was being a complete hypocrite. As previously pointed out, he made his career claiming that the military was composed of baby killers, top-to-bottom. Worse, in just the last few weeks, he's made several derogatory remarks about the military. In other words, this fits into a well documented pattern of behavior. It appears John Kerry really does have contempt for the members of the armed forced of this country and the military in general.
(And this doesn't count his very, very bizarre press release criticizing Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh.)
All else aside, Kerry just assured the end of his national political career. He is unelectable to national public office.
If that wasn't enough, the various self-identified Democrats on the news not only refused to criticize Kerry, but criticized anyone who did as being naive and disloyal. I was dumbfounded; do Democrats really think Kerry is the future of their party? As a conservative, I hope so, but for my own sanity, I dearly hope not.
And then you have Rangel completely losing his mind as well, but that's a different story. All, in all, the bulk of the Democrats running should be damn glad election is only a week away else they could completely self-destruction before then. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to watch them do it in office.
Doyle: If Democrats despised the troops, they wouldn't be criticizing the Iraq War.
I agree with Fenrisulven on this one. Many Democrats of Kerry's ilk don't give a rats ass about the military or the deaths in Iraq. They think the soldiers are stupid idiots on a march of folly and deserve their own demise. They only complain about it to get political traction from people who do care.
Kerry is one of these Democrats. Remember, he was despised by all his fellow officers in Vietnam, most who came out against him with the Swift Boat campaign. IN fact I do not recall a similar instance in politics where so many co-workers of a candidate came out publicly against the candidate willing to risk career and reputation to call the candidate a fraud.
With such a notorious track record for sliming the troops I find it a stretch from posters such as Elizabeth and Doyle to buy into the argument that the statement was a joke directed at Bush.
Kerry merely slipped up - a freudian slip at that.
dave,
not certain who you are calling "the brownshirts" . . .
Why not take off your coat and stay awhile - contribute something constructive to the conversation.
Taking a stab at ___________ (whomever you meant to offend) is a waste of your effort on this blog. Come on - act like an adult and you can sit at the big person's table this year.
Elizabeth said..."'I know exactly what he was saying and it is the sort of thing that antiwar people say, that the volunteer military is full of unfortunate, deluded souls.' I have to disagree, Ann....I can't know Kerry's motivations, but I sure can say that opposing this war is not synonymous with patronizing or despising our armed forces."
I'm not saying all people opposed to the Iraq war have this idea, but this is an often-expressed belief characteristic of the left.
And I'm totally not buying the botched joke theory. The joke is obviously constructed after the fact to try to explain the horrible statement. It would not have been written in the form that Kerry is claiming, which is why I say he's outrageously lying. It's a lie, because it's not true, and it's outrageous because it's on its face unbelievable. It makes no sense to say that if the students in the room don't get a good education, they will tend to become President and then make unfortunate mistakes as President. And there's no relevant background understanding that the Iraq war decisions came from a failure to get an education. The neocon ideas that led to the war were not the ideas of uneducated people who didn't study, but intellectuals with ideas that weren't realistic enough. The joke Kerry claims he meant to tell simply doesn't resonate properly with the things he would have meant to criticize.
Someone wrote: "I think it's all just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse, Sean Hannity, and the entire right blogosphere's version of the events are exactly the same."
LOL! As if Rush and Sean and I got on a conference call and plotted it. It's just a matter of reading plain English. Only if you're looking for an alternate reading do you have to get together beforehand.
Edward said "People who vote against one of the many good Democratic candidates due to a stupid remark by John Kerry are only hurting themselves."
People aren't that stupid. The reason for letting Kerry's one remark affect one's thinking is that it's a hint or reminder that there is a real Democratic Party attitude that's soft on national security, that's being actively hidden through the campaign, but that will be seen if the Democrats take power.
Dave: "I sure do love the smell of moronic brownshirt fucks crapping in their pants. You pricks are toast. Deal with it."
Toast doesn't wear pants. Or a shirt. Pricks don't wear shirts or even pants, depending on how you think about it. And pricks as toast? That's one crazy recipe. Dave, I can't even deal with your metaphors.
Ugh, why waste any energy defending The Void That Is John Kerry?
Aside from his propensity to repeatedly say stupid things that hurt the democrats, he has a looooong record of denigrating the military.The fact that he was in the military means nothing. He was simply trying to enhance his political future--and later, when he thought it might be useful, he was more than eager to testify against his fellow soldiers.
Hmm, for Kerry to have meant GWB as the target of his lazy, bad grades leading to being stuck in Iraq is certainly a plausible reading. Realy, realy badly executed.
But for a person who graduted with a Bachelors and a Masters from Ivy league schools to be considered ill-educated, who skated through without trying is saying something about Ivy League schools... (I wonder how Al Gore feels about thatm seeing as he had...err...isssues finishing the second degree)
Kerry has a history of disrespect towards our military, despite his service, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe he was talking about the troops and not Bush.
You have to remember who his audience was - liberal college students who love to talk a good game but who might or might not get out of bed and vote on election day. I would say his remarks were all about making them feel superior so they would go out and vote.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, it will have the opposite affect and get more Republicans out to vote.
President Bush, Senator Kerry, and even Mr. Gore are all men of above average intelligence.
God help us all.
I think Elizabeth had the most cogent take on this: Kerry tried to make a generic ha-ha-look-at-stupid-Bush joke, and flubbed it, badly. He and the D.'s would be best served by a graceful apology, but if he did that, he wouldn't be the Lurch we know and love.
"You can keep repeating that the Democrats are soft on security, or don't support the troops>"
Why should we have to do this when the Dems are saying so themselves?
"He and the D.'s would be best served by a graceful apology"
True, but unlikely to happen. Expecting a graceful gesture from Kerry is like expecting a graceful move from a brontosaurus. The armor plate of his self-importance is too much of an impediment.
"He insulted the troops!" "No, he was trying to insult the President and his stupid war."
Oh, whatever. It's not like Kerry didn't vote to authorize the President to deal with Iraq using any means he saw fit. If it was intellectual laziness that led to the invasion, what exactly was it that led to the affirming vote? And please, don't insult yourself by saying Kerry was "lied to" or "misled" - that's a crock of crap. He's solely responsible for his vote, and his claims of having voted in ignorance do no more to defend him than his claims to have been trying to insult the President. Neither of those are the actions of an honorable leader.
And this is the man that was considered "electable." It's funny: I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I was all "Anybody but Bush," right up until Senator-for-life Kerry reported for duty. Even as a more-or-less Conservative, I would have voted for Lieberman.
What? I'm to believe that Democrats won't be worse in their excessive spending?
Let's see. What party controlled the Executive Branch the last time the budget was balanced? I think a split government will (would?) be great for reducing the outrageous spending that's plagued Washington for the entirety of the Bush Administration.
You can count on Kerry to show us all how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
My local House race Democrat Tim Walz just cancelled his rally where Kerry was to appear. No comment was offered, however.
"After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in the spring of 2005. Prior to retiring, Walz served overseas with his battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."
Sorry if this has benn said repeatedly in the previous and unread 152 comments, but the allegation that Kerry is speaking of anything other than the Cheney-Rumsfield-Bush triumvirate is pure Rovian calumny.
MadisonMan,
OK, balanced budget accomplished by what? Cuts in entitlement spending did the trick. How many Democrats are running on that idea? NONE Like supporting the troops, Democrats speak in empty platitudes, no honesty, just spin for power.
Kerry's comments were demeaning to the troops. He simply got caught being the snide Kerry. He loathes the US military, always has. To he and his fellow leftists, the US military reflects the strength of US capitalism, the true enemy. John Kerry said, "communism is just another form of government to provide for the felt needs of people." Wrong on communism, wrong on radical Islam.
The neocon ideas that led to the war were not the ideas of uneducated people who didn't study, but intellectuals with ideas that weren't realistic enough.
Maybe the ideas were not realistic... but history is not over yet. The only thing currently fact is that the battle still rages in Iraq. No one has won or lost definatively. What is also true is that there are democrats (small D) in Iraq among the Baathists, the terrorists and the fundamentalists. No matter what you say about the state of things in Iraq, the democrats still have the upper hand - they currently control most of the army, and the oil, and have near total control in 15 of 18 provinces. They are not going to give that up because things are tough in parts of Baghdad and Anbar Province. The supply of money and arms to the bad guys in Iraq is not unlimited... they will tire too - if it is a battle of attrition and you wanted to be on the side of the survivor... which side would you pick?
The battle for freedom in the middle-east will be a long struggle, just as it was and is in other places around the globe. We should support that struggle. SO far our costs in Iraq are miniscule compared to the still potential result of a free and stable government in the middle east and are miniscule compared to other conflicts in American history. We need to stick by our initial decision to go to war and by our men and women in the field and finish the war.
Can we be confident that the Democratic party will support the struggle?
sloanasaurus,
Well said. The peace dividend from success in the Middle East would dwarf that of the Cold War. It will empower free market capitalism at the expense of leftist world government. Neo-con is shorthand for Jew.
If he'd been making off-the-cuff comments, I could buy that Kerry meant it about the troops, but no one is that tone deaf. The line was written into the speech to be about GWB. Of this I'm certain. The problem Kerry has is that he is already perceived as having an extraordinarily condescending attitude toward our troops. It doesn't matter whether me meant the Bush or the troops, because either one is consistent with his history. He's not paying for saying something stupid yesterday so much as paying for a pattern of elitism over the last several years.
The line was written into the speech to be about GWB. Of this I'm certain.
How can you be certain this was the case? His introduction to his remarks on education were something along the lines of, "I hadn't planned on saying this, but...." That would seem to indicate that he was speaking off the cuff (or his speech writers wanted him to look like he was speaking off the cuff).
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-White-House-Kerry.html
Bingo! Just like I said: close race Democrats say Kerry needs to apologize. Check it out.
Ford
Tester
and ....
Cardin!!!
I think this proves Cardin is weaker than polls with him ahead by 11% show. Good news for Steele.
''Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said,'' said Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee.
''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.''
''I'm sorry he did what he did. But I think the issue ... we want to make sure it doesn't confuse the subject of the war in Iraq,'' Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland, said on CNN.
LOL!!!
It was reported about 90 minutes ago that Kerry has cancelled all of his Wednesday's appearances, including with Bob Casey in PA.
Hmmmm. That doesn't sound quite like the action of a man who believes he's been wronged and who's not going to take it any more.
Yeah, except he was on IMUS still saying the same crap about Bush and Iraq... he's going to do media chat shows now. If he does O'Reilly this week, he's a genius.
Madison Man said: "Santorum is the absolute worst Senator Pennsylvanians have burdened themselves with in my memory. Maybe Joseph Clark was worse, given his embrace of gun control in a state where hunting is everywhere. Maybe Santorum'd be better if he actually, you know, lived in Pennsylvania. Did he ever pay back the Penn Hills School District for the money he essentially stole from them?
Not in it for the cash indeed. Pull the other one."
Madison - I live in Philly and Specter is by far the worst and that is saying a lot cause we have had a lot of mediocre senators. Santorum is far from the worst. He is being penalized because he expressed his opinions freely and the liberal media especially the Philly Inquirer made him out to be a demon. Re the school issue, much ado about nothing- are you suggesting one state (Virginia) should repy the school cost to Pennsylvania? If so, big frigging deal- it's a bookkeeping issue- the media made it out to be some kind of theft- let's face the lib MSM does not care for th etrend to home-schooling.
And the gay agenda is hot to get rid of Santorum. They hate him for his man-dog comment which was too raw of an argument for some. But, he made his point.
Post a Comment