November 1, 2006
"So Kerry's ridiculous elitism, burbling out of him as if he lives, as I suspect, entirely on a diet of lentils and club soda..."
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass lets the Kerry mockery rip.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
105 comments:
"...that Kerry will remain a man of principle in this regard for the next week..."
...until the man votes against his principles.
Isn't this just a mountain out of a molehill?
Eric, when the Republicans have nothing to do but play defense, why shouldn't you expect them to seize on Kerry's latest verbal gaffe. Sure, he probably didn't mean it the way it sounds -- but it sounds completely horrible, and Kerry doesn't seem to realize that! The man is incredibly tone deaf. What would a heart-felt apology cost him, anyway?
Democrats everywhere should demand he give one. "Monday I mangled my words in a way to impugn the intelligence of our fine fighters everywhere. That was certainly not my intent and I offer my apology to these fighting men and women whom I admire greatly. This is not the first or the last time a politician will have words come out of their mouths that sound horrible. I am profoundly sorry." Then he should turn around and get off the stage.
Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
Kerry lied?
voters decide!
and even an apology now would be worthless ... it's too late -- something about unringing a bell, or toothpaste and a tube, and all that.
Hey, lay off the lentil soup slander. I like lentil soup.
As sad as Kerry's remarks were, I'm just as troubled by the response from the audience. They cheered. It appears Kerry isn't the only one who clings to the stereotype that the men and women who enlist in the military do so because, well, they're not smart enough to do anything else.
Gerry: C'mon - of course they were. The entire reference was to the war as a bad policy (context matters, once again). And given Mr. Kerry's status as a former soldier and Mr. Bush's public persona (fair or not) of being, shall we say, anit-intellectual, it is clear Kerry was referencing Mr. Bush. Taking any other position merely weakens your credibility.
I really don't think this flies. He's addressing a bunch of students, and in that context, the most natural reading is that he really is talking about them, not Bush. The only way they get "stuck" in Iraq is if they join the military (or a contractor or something), and he's making his little joke at the soldiers' expense.
That said, though, given that Kerry's college grades seem to have been worse than Bush's, it's not like he studied in college either (unless he is even stupider than I think), and look where he is now: He may be an object of public mockery and a figure of fun, but he's also filthy rich, and living a live of supreme luxury.
"What really happened is that John Kerry had a "Dixie Chicks" moment. Like Natalie Maines in England, Kerry thought he had a sympathetic audience of liberal college students to whom he could pander, by sharing a little inside humor. "Heh, heh, I know you guys despise the military and think they're dummies. I do too. Ain't I cool?"
via Annika's Journal
This has already gone beyond Kerry. Democrat talking heads are already saying that even if Kerry misspoke, he's still right!
I'm not certain why you republish this stuff. Don't you understand that republication gives you ownership? And if you want to do it, then please show that you're an equal opportunity republicationist, and give a little time to real races (say, the Katherine Harris meltdown in Florida) which are far more interesting in the scope of their implications, and are more worthy of your time and considerable talents.
So Kerry's ridiculous elitism... a big chunk of wood floating just above Republican hands in deep water.
This is the line I like. Though "wood" is not the word I'd use...
The problem that Kerry stubbornly refuses to recognize is that his comments might have been "directed at the President" in his head, but that was anything but clear in the words he said. Combine that with his past comments about servicemen, portraying them essentially as cannibals, and even Kerry should understand the source of the confusion and rancor. And yet, somehow, he doesn't. What is wrong with him?
Apologizing for this comment does not require him to concede one inch of ground on policy to Bush. Bush isn't the person who needs the apology. It's the people who Kerry insulted accidentally (he says) as he tried to insult Bush.
There's got to be someone in his camp who has tried and failed to explain this concept to Kerry. This person must be about ready to shoot their heads off.
How should this not reflect on the democrats? After all this is the man they personally selected to represent their party in the last presidential election. He was the one who defined their program for them. Now we hear that you can't blame the democrats for what this man said?
Well, judging from the recent items on Instapundit, the new crop of right-wing Democrats (e.g. Jesus-loving Ford, or the Buchananite Webb) may be well positioned to use this as a kind of Sister Souljah moment. Which would be good for their party, and good for America, actually, so long as they play it up properly. Repudiate him! Let's have our Buckley anti-Bircher moment.
Kerry has to come to every party already snockered, don a lampshade, flirt with the boss's wife, insult the biggest client, and tip over the punchbowl while dancing on the table.
Next morning, he'll blame the secretary.
Is the official claim that Kerry's punchline was meant to be: "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq"?
If so, then what's with the use of the word "stuck?" I mean, it is true that a soldier can get "stuck" in the sense that he or she can't simply change his or her mind and catch a bus back home.
But there's very little advantage to Kerry to say that the U.S. is indefinitely "stuck." After all, the Democratic Party's promise is to get the U.S. (and the soldiers) unstuck faster than the Republican Party. Kerry's overarching message wouldn't have been one of practical futility.
Perhaps the gaffe (if it was one)was caused by Kerry's disorientation as he suffered a flashback to his Christmas in Camodia and felt that depressing sense of abandonment all over again.
If only he'd studied harder.
*sniff*
So Republicans now can detect medicine levels of Parkinson's patients, and know what's in their heart --diagnosis, and get inside brain dead woman -- and vulcan mind-meld Democrats thoughts in statements, for their true intent.
The GOP doesn't even have a platform anymore. No ideas, no attack ad too sleazy, no hatchet job too deep. Your President going on Rush Limbaugh today, a true American Pig, is all the proof you need of that. You need to be eye-level with a snake to talk to a Republican these days.
And in a party of swine -- Limbaugh and Hannity fit in just fine. Reagan's Party my ass.
a real turd in the catsup bottle for sure
Here's an analogy that the left blogosphere will understand.
Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face because he mistook him for a quail. Dick Cheney didn't apologize to the quail; he rightly apologized to the guy he shot in the face. Kerry is acting like it's the quails who are demanding he apologize- not for shooting a guy, but for shooting at quails.
No one wants to take away Kerry's right to criticize Bush, but he's acting like that's what this is all about.
There's got to be someone in his camp who has tried and failed to explain this concept to Kerry. This person must be about ready to shoot their heads off.
One could just give the gun to Kerry, and have him shoot himself again.
I wonder, though, if Kerry's advisors aren't every bit as insular and kowtowing as Bush's. It would certainly explain things.
“And they accuse liberals of using government power in the service of utopian social engineering?”
It’s not utopian. It’s a simple standard, and a very old and successful one at that. It includes moral norms like anti-adultery, polygamy, orgies, pornography & promiscuousness. It has a myriad of social benefits and is something every government & society has enforced inside and outside the law.
The Kerry Elitism (in my understanding) refers to a mindset of the intellectual (predominate in Universities and Western Europe). They approach things like the War on Terror the same way much of the Clinton foreign policy did. To treat it a s a law enforcement problem. They think they can thread the needle and while doing three things.
1- stop actual terrorists who are plotting actual attacks
2- Not upset the Muslim world
3- Maintain their sense of superior humanity
I don’t think war works like that myself. I think you need to fight the enemy on multiple fronts until you have demoralized them & their cause. I think the liberal approach (as practiced) will only demoralize us, and lead to further attacks.
you may or may not think Mr. Kerry came across as referencing the troops (as being unintelligent) but a little context would tell anyone Kerry would never make that comment.
Beyond Kerry's proven track record of slamming American sodliers, what we've seen of Kerry's ego also makes it entirely plausible. It seems pretty clear that he believes he's smarter than absolutely everyone else.
And that's what galls him. He deserves to be President, after all -- he knows what to do -- but it's those moronic, beer-swilling rubes he has to get approval from.
I have no difficulty in believing John Kerry has offensive elitist attitudes toawrds everyone. Why should the military be excepted?
He's going to blame his speech-writer, just like he blamed "that son of a bitch"
I think he should blame Barbara Streisands speech writer! That would be neat!
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWJjMTVhZTFlZTJlN2U4NWNhNzc4MmMzZGU2YTg4ZDM=
More proof, as if more were needed, that this is indeed, the Stupidest Place on the Internet™.
You can return to your pathetic circle-jerk now...
So why are so many servicemen and Democrats demanding he apologize to the troops? Why is Kerry finished as an 08 candidate?
Got links?
Thought not.
I'm a former US Marine.
What a coincidence! I'm a blonde, blue-eyed cheerleader at a well-known midwestern college, and this is my first time writing to Forum, too!
Funny, funny trolls today. I'd hate to have to defend the generic Democratic speechs as rendered by Kerry: "This is what we believe, and we believe it with all our heart and soul (unless someone finds something objectionable about it, in which case we didn't say it, and if we did say it we didn't mean it, and if we did say it [and maybe we meant it] it's all those rotten Republicans' fault anyway)."
Spinning that is hard, very hard.
He didn't insult anybody because his comment was intended to criticize George W. Bush's failed philosophy.
So intentions (which nobody can know aside from the person who has them) are more important than what actually gets said (which we can all know)? That doesn't make any sense.
But thank you Trinity & Dave for exemplifying the disrepect the Left has for the military.
Save us the false outrage, please. Your party has left our military for dead in Iraq, at least until the elections are over. Pay as you go body armor, and tin can humvees aren't exactly troop loving kinda guys. I'm sure you can give us data to look at, confirming Repubs care more our military than Dems. Right?
But, with 19 Republicans under Federal investigation -- ranging from bribery, money laundering, choking mistresses, to taking hush money from page-fuckers -- I don't think Americans really believe Repubs are "for our troops" any more than they are "for them"
If you really cared about troops, you would be outraged at Bush abandoning a missing soldier in Iraq, right now.
You can return to your pathetic circle-jerk now...
Trolling a blog merely to insult the commenters strikes me as equally masturbatory. At least the rest of us are doing it with friends!
This is really the bottom of the barrel stuff.
Nonsense. This is the learned salon of the Divine Ms. Althouse! You just have to disregard the overwhelming smell of right wing effluent.
fenris, why did the US Military stop looking for the soldier kidnapped (gone AWOL?) in the shiite controlled part of Baghdad? It looks like the President of Iraq told the US to move its troops, and the troops were moved. That missing soldier? Kind of forgotten about.
That might be what Mr. Mahal is referring to.
John Derbyshire has weighed in on this phony controversy, and pretty much declared it bullshit.
John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.
Looking forward to hearing how John Derbyshire hates the troops, Ann.
You'd better come up with something else. You've got less than a week!
Fenris -
Since you obviously have a greater understanding of study design and statistics than those hacks from Johns Hopkins, what figure do you think approximates how many Iraqis have died as a result of the war? Did Rush give you a number of his own, or did he just establish to your satisfaction that the Lancet study was politically motivated?
You do realize that even if it were "only" 100,000 people. That's 33 times as many people as were killed in the attack that supposedly precipitated the war (despite Iraq having "nothing" to do with 9/11, per Bush).
The war itself was a mistake (I'll even concede that it was an honest mistake) that Republicans, though fewer and fewer each month, are still defending.
Kerry meant Bush because he knows who sends them over there...
If so much as one putative soldier does well enough in school to not to be desperate enough to end up in Iraq, Kerry would have done more good than eight years of 'All Bush No Plan'.
Wait, so who was the joke about?
I have a Fill-In-The-Blank game posted on my blog.
"...If you don’t, you get stuck _____________________."
I'm not sure if he's a translator, or a soldier (or both). But yes an Iraqi American (I think).
The NYTimes also discusses this.
It should trouble people that the Iraqi President can order American Troops around.
Kerry was on Imus this morning and I think he apologized for demeaning the troops. The poor man never had much ability at communication. But I think he said that he was sorry that he had demeaned the troops. Did anybody see that? What exactly was he trying to say?
Which would be good for their party, and good for America, actually, so long as they play it up properly. Repudiate him! Let's have our Buckley anti-Bircher moment.
I would love it if the Democrats repudiated Kerry. They should repudiate Moveon.org and Pelosi as well.
Lets get back the days of JFK where the Democrats cared about national security and cut taxes. I would even consider voting for one.
I've seen their handgun violence studies. They are agenda driven.
Fenris, you can't just conclude that because studies are unflattering to your point of view that they are "agenda driven." You have to have a better refutation than "Where are all the body bags?" before you dismiss their findings as hippie propaganda.
As I understand it, by the way, there are places where the violence is so bad that the government doesn't even collect the bodies for bagging.
The photo on Drudge is so telling
of this topic. Althouse should post the photo as an update to this thread.
John Derbyshire is National Review's designated cranky conservative. He pretty much hates John Kerry, dislikes President Bush. His view on the War is "Rubble Doesn't Make Trouble."
Derb and Ramesh Ponnuru are duking it out pretty well over in the Corner.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGViZDY2ZjVkMzkyNTg4YmRkYTY0NTJlYTQ3NjVlN2Q=
As time goes by, here is what seems to matter about all this.
Going into next Tuesday, the Republicans were in deep trouble. The primary cause of their electoral worries was the lack of motivation among the base, who have been embarrassed by the GOP and Bush of late, and see no reason to come out and vote for them.
The GOP strategists needed something to get their blood boiling. A message, the cherry on the sundae, to go into battle with during those final 72 hours.
They would've ginned up something; now they don't have to. They've got Kerry's comments, which are better than anything they could've concocted.
That's why Ford, Casey and others (uh, dave, you might want to read the news) are denouncing Kerry and disinviting him from their campaign appearances. As soon as Kerry shows up anywhere, the GOP gets a boost.
I don't anticipate very many voters who planned to vote Democratic will change their plan in light of Kerry's comments. But this comment will drive up GOP turnout, which was the main problem for the GOP in this election. The odds of a good night for Democrat have now diminished. It still could happen. But Kerry's behavior has lengthened the odds.
It's kind of like the World Series. The Tigers' errors handed the Cardinals runs they wouldn't have otherwise earned.
One of the apparently liberal commenters above wrote: Your President going on Rush Limbaugh today, a true American Pig, is all the proof you need of that.
I wonder why he called Limbaugh a "true American pig"? Why not just a "true pig"? Why was the "American" adjective necessary? If were going to insult a liberal, I would not call them a "true American pig", I'd call them a "true pig". The commenter revealed more about their actual opinion of America than they probably intended. And liberals wonder why people say they are anti-American? They drip with contempt for America, at least as it is and has been.
I'd love to see an interviewer ask Kerry what position(s) of leadership (committee chairs, etc) he will have if the Democrats get control of the Senate.
Cedarford -
Which is worse, a condescending attitude towards the troops which acknowledges that a lot of them are there for lack of better career options? or...
A rah-rah "Support the Troops" nationalistic orgy that only serves to keep them in a country we didn't have to invade?
I said it on yesterday's Kerry-bashing thread, and I'll say it again: 8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.
The prior Lancet study was a joke, just as the more recent one is. Hence, most people disregarded both of them as political hit-pieces, intended to to sway US elections.
The "medical" journals JAMA and Lancet and are very left-of-center in their politics (so are JSGIM, NEJM, and AIM). That's old news. Pretty good examples of what happens when ideology maquerades as science.
______________________________
Fenris: great photo. I hope JFK gets to see it, although given his tin ear, he might think it's real, not a joke.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Do you really think that Bush's "about 30,000" off-the-top-of-my-head estimate was more accurate (or less politically motivated) than the 650,000 Lancet figure? Bear in mind the latter explicitly included non-combat deaths.
I said it on yesterday's Kerry-bashing thread, and I'll say it again: 8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.
I wonder if any of these candidates are "opportunists?" Just a thought...
I can't to see how some of these guys vote.
8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.
And this proves what, exactly?
Are you really suggesting that 89% of Iraq vets support the Democratic party?
Care to make a wager on whether those guys will get 89% support from active duty military or vets?
Pull the other one, Doyle.
who is John Derbyshire?
Another conservative pedarist. Oh, and a commentator.
And this proves what, exactly?
Maybe just that the troops are not as enamored of the Bush agenda as the cheerleaders back home.
It's interesting that our left leaning commenter's here take a couple of approaches.
1. The Doyle's of the world seem to be of the opinion that Kerry was either right on target with his slur, or that the rest of us are idiots for not understanding the subtle message embodied there in.
2. Elizabeth, and several others take the position that Kerry again proved he's too dumb to breed or run and ought to be ashamed of his slur. That it's not all about Kerry and that he has destroyed his reputation again and should forget about 08
3. and MadisonMan takes a variant position that, regardless of what the dumb SOB meant to say, the GOP is going to exploit it as their last chance to save the election and that Kerry, if he had half a brain would do the right thing for the party and slit his belly, or failing that, apologize, or failing that slink off the stage and allow real candidates a chance to win their campaigns.
Is that the gist? are there other variations?
The Doyle's of the world seem to be of the opinion that Kerry was either right on target with his slur, or that the rest of us are idiots for not understanding the subtle message embodied there in.
I believe Kerry was referring to Bush as the example of what happens if you don’t study hard.
It was a slur of the president, and only subtle in that it sounded like he was referring to the troops.
P.S. Any chance Ann could teach a remedial course on apostrophe usage? It’s hard enough wading through this crap as it is.
Wow, DrillSgt, I get my own category! Thank you! Is that a tribute to my scatterbrained writing? I'm so disgusted with Kerry (again) it's hard to think straight. I have to add, though, that I've also pointed out several times that this ends Kerry's National Office Ambitions. Thank God.
I meant that yours was a variant of #2, not that you didn't think he was toast nationally.
MM,
I singled you out for your pragmatism on the topic :)
You and IMUS.
Who the hell cares?, STFU and sit down John so we can win!
Where's the obligatory reference by dave wherein he cuts and pastes his standard 'brownshirt motherf*er' comment?
I think that deserves a special category. Maybe call it "The Short Bus" response.
P.S. Since my brother is retarded, I am permitted to make that joke.
Finally, he has apologized to the troops. About 36 hours later than he should have.
Dump the guy overboard. He's Foley.
I agree. It's great fun seeing the left trying to defend John Forbes Kerry - golddigger, sandanista sympathizer, and former leader of VVAW for his latest slander of American Troops.
Kerry should probably resign. If he hates the troops he has no business representing the people of Mass.; they deserve better...
He just apologized.
Sort of.
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted [by my intellectual inferiors] to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was [so easily] offended," he said in a written statement [while holding his crossed fingers behind his back].
Apology unaccepted.
LOL
I was being gentle and revise my remarks.
If my kids "apologized" the way John Kerry did, I would cut them off and tell them to try again. In addition, apologizing by a press release is phoney.
On top of that, he still insists that he really didn't offend anyone, but rather it was everyone else who misinterpretted him. Why the hell can't he just say: "I said something stupid. I'm sorry." and leave it at that?
"... are there other variations?"
Sure. One would be that Republicans are desperately looking for a Democratic Foley-like issue. This isn't about Kerry, and it's not about the troops, and it's not about Bush. It's about Republican anxiety, and any other volatile issue would have served. It's about trying to stampede the voters, with only six days to go. Tick tock, tick tock.
Doyle's interesting theory:
"It was a slur of the president, and only subtle in that it sounded like he was referring to the troops."
So let me try this out on you, Doyle.
"Doyle is a co-dependent sycophant who can't think for himself, and needs Democratic talking points before he decides what to eat for breakfast."
Oh, gosh, did Doyle take offense? He must have missed me being subtle. It only sounded like I was referring to Doyle. In context, it's clear I meant somebody else.
Not to be a grammar Bushitler, but coming from such a highly educated man as John Kerry, I'm surprised his apology statement's double-negative got through the editing process.
If, as Kerry says, his words were "misinterpreted to wrongly imply" something, doesn't that mean the opposite of "interpreted to wrongly imply," and also the opposite of "misinterpreted to imply?" If you misintepret something to wrongly imply, the two negatives cancel each other out, so you're left with a statement "interpreted to imply...." Which would mean the people who took it as a slur against the troops got it right, although Kerry clearly thinks he said the reverse.
Maybe he didn't study hard enough.
I sincerely hope this fixes things and lets the moderate Democrats in close-fought districts get back to their campaigns. But wasting two days in the last week of a campaign sucks.
But he didn't just apologize. He personally apologized...
in a press statement.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply...
And he split an infinitive! Damn him!
daryl,
I got a chuckle out of your...
Kerry meant what he said. We should not get sidetracked by the fact that the prepared remarks were a joke about dumb Bush. I think that's where a lot of conservative Kerry defenders are going wrong.
which conservative defender was that?
Last election the troops went 70-30 for the GOP.
Really?
In 2000, Gore got less than 20% of the military vote.
In 2004, Kerry got 43%.
I wonder why the change?
By the way, is Kerry running for anything next week?
"You know, political humor education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to make smart jokes, you can do well and be an asset to your party.
"If you don't, you get stuck in Pasadena City College."
By the way, is Kerry running for anything next week?
No, but then neither is Mark Foley, but that's not stopping the Democratic Party from seeking an advantage from his downfall.
Herbert Hoover wasn't running for anything after 1932, but he was the target of Democratic attacks well into the 1970s. Jimmy Carter and George McGovern were Republican shorthand for the Democratic Party's flaws well into the 90s -- and even today.
Past failed candidates and disgraced ex-officeholders are frequently used to symbolize the critique of the other party. It only works when it's accurate. Foley works because he symbolizes Republican hypocrisy on the "social issues." We'll see if John Kerry will become a symbol for why Democrats shouldn't be trusted on foreign and military issues. I think his saliency was fading, but that was then. Now it's front and center.
In his statement, Kerry said "I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops."
What is that strategy? He's been promising it since the spring of 2004 and it still hasn't seen the light of day. I suppose it's in the same place as Nixon's "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.
In 2004, Kerry got 43%.
Have a link for this?
The link is here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Google "CNN Kerry Bush military vote 2004"
The number is actually 41%. But it's more than twice what Gore got, and certainly doesn't indicate that the vets believed the Swift Boat lies about Kerry, and certainly isn't anywhere near 70%.
I guess 41% of vets wanted the terrorists to win.
"No, but then neither is Mark Foley, but that's not stopping the Democratic Party from seeking an advantage from his downfall."
How idiotic is this comment? Foley happens to be on the ballot, first of all. Second, Foleygate isn't about Foley, it's about the incompetent Republican House leadership that ignored Foley's actions.
Hastert is toast over the Foley issue, as is Reynolds.
If you can't see the difference between a drunk pederast being enabled by the GOP House and a Senator who's not on the ballot botching a joke, you're in for a rude awakening next week.
Believe me, Edward: The conversation thread here is nothing compared to what the various Democratic candidates' campaign managers are discussing. I'm sure that by comparison, this discussion is:
a) less obscene;
b) less angry;
c) less urgent.
Here are the realities that most of these campaign pros undoubtedly see.
1) My guy was winning as of the last poll. But not by a lot.
2) My guy, and my party had all the momentum, and has had for several weeks. Now it's stopped.
3) The Jesus-loving Reeps in my district were unenthusiastic because Bush and the GOP have been such a disappointment to them. My strategy there was let-sleeping-wingnuts-lie. Kerry has fucked that up.
4) The Rove 72-hour turnout machine didn't scare me before. But now, I'm more worried, and all I'm getting from national headquarters is a busy signal.
I suppose this is a waste of time, just like doing anything else on line is a waste of time. For some posters here, it's schadenfreude. For me, I just hate complacent Democrats. I'm an un-complacent Democrat. Complacent Democrats do themselves and the party in, every time. The last good election night for the Democratic party was 10 years ago (or, one might argue, 14 years ago) but if you believe our leaders and the media, we had every election since then in the bag. Why is this year different? The Kerry episode illustrates why we need to be a lot more thoughtful about our politics if we're ever going to have a shot at power again.
Blue Texan said...
Last election the troops went 70-30 for the GOP.
Really?
In 2000, Gore got less than 20% of the military vote.
In 2004, Kerry got 43%.
Blue Texan, either you don't understand the terms or you're misstating the question.
Military vote isn't exactly the same as Veteran vote. Your citation of CNN was veterans, here is the question asked:
HAVE YOU EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY?
The Army Times did an un-scientific survey that tracked military active and reserves in 2004 and had this result:
In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.
You Republicans are just wasting your time droning on endlessly here about one stupid botched joke by John Kerry.
Harold Ford, in the TN Senate race, felt the need to strongly criticize Kerry's little "botched joke" about dumb soldiers. Most of the Democrats in close races are doing the same thing. Nobody's buying the "oh, I was talking about how Bush is dumb" story because it doesn't actually make any sense.
Basically, Edward, you're asking me to believe that *you* know more about what's bad for Democratic candidates than the candidates themselves do. Got a reason why I should?
Republican errors have also done far more damage to the well-being of this country.
That doesn't matter. Past mistakes by both parties are already accounted for by current poll numbers. *New* mistakes can still shift the polls. Simply put, Democrats have a chance of taking Congress only because Republicans have screwed up so much. That doesn't mean Democrats can go ahead and screw up too.
Edward, This is great news for Democrats! The only question they'll have is: "Who's Boehner?"
To be serious, the reason this issue won't fly is that the Reeps are given far more running room on defense issues than the Dems, just because of past history.
If Boehner said something racist, anti-gay, or unsympathetic with the poor, that would be a big story, e.g. he'd become the symbol of Republican intolerance and heartlessness. What we already know to be true about them, personified.
Kerry played right into the Democrats' biggest liability in 2006. That's why it's a big deal. He popped up like a ghoul from the past to remind everyone that Democrats don't "get" the military. (I know, I know...there are exceptions! But the stereotype is what it is.)
Apparently a shiite cleric in AL Sadr ordering checkpoints abandoned set up by our military, in hopes to find a kidanapped American soldier in Baghdad, is ok.
A mangled joke about Iraq, not so much.
I just spent an hour reading the Kos people's comments on this Kerry thing. Two things struck me.
First, the vulgarity. The f-word and crude sexual metaphors peppered every third comment, including Kos' lead commentary (or whatever they call it).
Second, the repeated calls to fight, be aggressive, "grow some balls" (another sexual metaphor), and so on, so as not to appear to be wimps.
And it struck me that people like this on the left are deeply wounded by the criticisms that they are weak on things like defense, but they think that the thing that will make them look strong is to scream louder, curse dirtier, and offend more thoroughly than anyone else. It's as though they took Roosevelt's aphorism about speaking softly and carrying a big stick and got it exactly backwards: they scream loudly and disavow the stick.
It's kind of sad to watch them tear each other up in the comments on that site too. They strike me as a bunch of very angry, unhappy people. It worries me for the future of the country when half of the electorate is that hate-filled and contemptuous of the other half.
DrillSgt., your breakdown is useful. I think I overlap with MadisonMan in item 3, and hope to see the last of Kerry's hopes for 2008. Now if he'd just free up the bucks he's been hoarding since 2004, I might even feel kindly toward him again.
I spent a bit of time on the phone with a friend in Boston today, and she had a lot to say, none of it nice. She says she's long regarded Kerry as Bush with a different letter after his name. I know that won't amuse many here, but I think there's a lot of truth to that. Fortunate Sons both, with their Gentlemen's Cs. Bush has gone the folksy route while Kerry's gone with the Ted Baxter announcer voice. Listen closely and neither one is saying anything brilliant. In the end, I'm not laughing at Kerry's intended joke (if we give him the benefit of the doubt) anymore than I laughed at Bush's poking under tables looking for the WMDs. Iraq ain't funny.
"Kerry should probably resign. If he hates the troops he has no business representing the people of Mass.; they deserve better..."
No they don't. MA is a one-party state whose entire Congressional delegation is Democratic. Kerry, whose flaws have been as obvious to Bay Staters as to everyone else, has nevertheless been Senator for 20 years. It's not as if Kerry has never had opponents; it's just that in a one-party state you need never acquire any political skills or insight because you'll always be reelected.
You get the government you deserve.
Now the Democratic Party is calling on Boehner to apologize, and I think he should apologize. Two can play at this game.
But apparently only one can play it well -- nobody cares if you insult generals. Hell, everyone I've known who served in the Army made a habit of it.
Defending the brass and insulting the rank-and-file is a really stupid move, particularly when a war isn't going that well.
I insulted Generals when I was in the military. I was ticked that Schwartzkopf got to ignore the weight standards the rest of us had to follow.
Anyway I'd like to see or hear Boehner's actual comments. This sounds a wee bit convenient to be coming up now.
The governor of Massachusetts is a very conservative Republican. How did he win?
They've also had a liberal Republican governor in recent memory, Weld. I believe Kerry took the seat long filled by a black moderate Republican, Edward Brooke.
If the Republican party fields attractive candidates, and opens its door to more moderate views, a one-party state can become a two-party state. In the quintessential Blue state, California, the Republican Party has been a pathetic, right-wing PC joke for about 15 years, but now is likely to win all but one of the statewide offices, because of Arnold. It's not his star power, it's his centrism. He never could have won the GOP nomination except as an incumbent, and only became governor b/c of the recall/replacement election was non-partisan. The interesting election will be in four years. Will the Reeps nominate another extreme right-winger, or will they finally get the message of Arnold's success?
My only point is: It takes two parties to make a one-party state. It's often the case that the other party has committed suicide.
OK, I found it at CNN.com:
In an interview with CNN's "The Situation Room," Boehner -- an Ohio Republican who offered a ringing defense of Rumsfeld over the weekend -- said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld," to which CNN's Wolf Blitzer replied, "But he's in charge of the military."
"The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president," Boehner replied. Both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid interpreted that exchange as an attempt by Boehner to blame U.S. generals for failings in Iraq, and they quickly demanded an apology.
I'm betting Boehner will say it's a joke "Did I say Rumsfeld? I meant Seinfeld. I love that guy."
Revenant: Spare me all your talk about "defending the brass." It’s not really a question of "defending the brass." It never has been
Edward, you *are* defending the brass; saying otherwise is a lie, plain and simple. You're just parrotting the Democratic party line by way of explanation for *why* you're defending the brass.
The public sees Kerry's comment as an insult to American troops. They'll see Boehner's as an attempt to deflect blame. The two are NOT equivalent in voters' eyes -- playing the blame game is business as usual, while insulting the rank and file of the US military during wartime is taboo.
It’s about making the people at the top – Bush, Rumsfeld, and Congressional leaders like Boehner – accept responsibility for that failure
No, that's what you and other Democrats want it to be about. The American people are not holding their breath, desperately hoping for Bush to go on TV and say "gosh, I'm sorry about all this". What Americans want is for someone to fix the mess in Iraq -- not take the blame for failure there. They are perfectly capable of assigning blame on their own.
Here's Harry Reid's release on what Boehner said:
http://tinyurl.com/yajmo4
In effect, Boehner, who nobody outside of the beltway has even heard of, refused to go along with Wolf Blitzer's characterization of Iraq as completely the fault of Donald Rumsfeld. Boehner says: "But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president." End of criticism. For this, Sen. Harry Reid is "demanding an apology."
To paraphrase Ross Perot, if this is the best the Democrats can do to counter Kerry's gaffe, "well that's just sad." Essentially, he is being asked to apologize for not agreeing with Wolf Blitzer that Donald Rumsfeld deserves all the blame for Iraq. I mean...that's lame. Political reporters must be puking with laughter at this transparent gesture.
In the quintessential Blue state, California, the Republican Party has been a pathetic, right-wing PC joke for about 15 years but now is likely to win all but one of the statewide offices, because of Arnold. It's not his star power, it's his centrism
Um, take a look at this list of California governors. There's nothing unusual about Republicans in California. It is the state legislature that's solidly Democratic.
Where are all the fired generals then? We *are* in a banana republic if the generals are calling all the shots.
I can't see Barry McCafferty liking this.
Right, but Boehner isn't even saying the generals are "in charge." He's saying they're in charge along with Rumsfeld and Bush. What Boehner was doing was spreading the blame among all the principals who have some decisive role to play on Iraq. Read his quote. He didn't exempt Rumsfeld.
If it were up to me, Rumsfeld would've been fired two years ago, by the way. I'm just objecting to the comical attempt to blow this nothing comment up into a gaffe on the same tier as the 2004 Democratic candidate for president suggesting that the troops in Iraq are comprised of kids who flunked out of college.
Californians have done it right: split the power between the two parties. Look what happens when that doesn't happen. Ohio!
It’s about making the people at the top – Bush, Rumsfeld, and Congressional leaders like Boehner – accept responsibility for that failure
And then what?
I'd much rather have them spend their energy trying to figure out a way to win rather than protecting their rear flank. The same is true for just about anyone. I tell you -- if the Democrats take the House/Senate, and someone emerges with a credible plan to win (whatever that means), and helps to see it executed, I'll vote for them.
The problem becomes, of course, that a successful Democratic plan will be opposed by ambitious Republicans. (and vice versa).
"The governor of Massachusetts is a very conservative Republican. How did he win?'
MA, while totally blue, has had the custom of electing Republican governors to serve as a check on the excesses of the always-Democratic, always-corrupt state legislature.
Iraq must fail so that Bush and Rumsfeld can be punished. Edward, how many innocents must die to satiate your BDS?
Topsy-turvy, inside-out thinking Lalalala, fingers in your ears, droning "I can't hear you."
The war is failing. Not because I want it to, not because I'm deee-ranged and ca-ra-zee and just hate, hate Booshitler. Iraq is broke. We broke it. It is our problem, and we can't abandon it. But we can damn sure stop electing the idiots who've taken us thus far, and stop yelling "BDS" everytime someone says something you don't like about the performance of this administration.
Iraq is broke. We broke it.
Er... we did? When did that happen, exactly? When was Iraq a functional, democratic, peaceful nation that didn't experience regular bouts of mass bloodshed?
The only way we could be said to have "broken" Iraq is if you consider a nation ruled by a mass-murdering totalitarian dictator to be "fixed". I don't -- do you?
Revenant, Iraq went from the frying pan to the fire. We invaded without a plan to win the peace. It's not a zero sum game; yes, life under Saddam was tyrannical, but life under warfare is as bad. I have friends who fled Iraq for the U.S. and political asylum. They themselves use the term "broken" to describe what's happened to Iraq since 2003. It's shallow to say "well, at least Saddam is gone" in response to the critique that Iraq right now is out of control, and that its citizens are in danger. You know, there's a reason Bush I didn't take out Saddam.
The Islamofascist threat wasn't centered in Iraq until we invaded it.
More backwards logic, and more idiotic language. Here's my suggestion: learn to talk to other Americans who disagree with you without resorting to calling them "cultists" and using juvenile "BDS" namecalling.
I know someone's lost the ability to think clearly when all they can do is scream that their opponent is craaazee and deee-ranged and is in a cult. Oh, and emotional. Yeah, you just ooze rationality.
And name-calling is not name-calling if the "name" fits.
Yes, it is, J. And it's an empty, divisive way to discuss our nation's interests. You've established your level of rhetoric, and anyone with any interest in doing more than slinging adolescent insults knows they needn't bother to engage with you.
Iraq went from the frying pan to the fire.
The claim that Iraq was better off under Hussein is the moral and historical equivalent of Holocaust revisionism, so far as I'm concerned. I'll not dignify it with a response.
Well, the Rumsfeld is bad, should be fired is another meme that has caught hold with little to back it up.
There are two things against him. First, he is doing the job that Bush gave him, and doing it well. And secondly, he has the ability to make liberal reporters look like the idiots they often are. And for this, the meme is that he should be fired.
But it also follows from the other falacious meme, that Iraq has failed, and that he is the architect.
The reality is that he was given an almost impossible job, of vastly changing the military in its force structures and deployments during a shooting war. The revising our military for the 21st Century is a massive undertaking that is almost hidden from the American public by the concentration on the War on Terror.
When he entered office, he found a military that had been gutted by Clinton in his Peace Dividend (for example, half the Army divisions had been retired). Yet, it had been gutted in all the wrong ways - what we had left were in many cases precisely the wrong types of troops - a lot of heavy armor, etc. aimed at a no longer existant Soviet Union, separated from Russia now by new NATO members.
And that was the military we had when we went into Afganistan and Iraq. And he didn't set the timing for either one. In Iraq, sanctions were rapidly falling apart, with Saddam having bribed three of the five permeant members on the Security Council. Within months, it is likely that sanctions would have been lifted, the No-Fly-Zones history, with the Kurds following shortly, WMD production restarted, and the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world in tatters, while Saddam would be the hero of the Moslem world for staring us down and winning.
Those who blame Rumsfeld for the war ignore all those inconvenient facts.
So, we went in, and Rumsfeld listened to his generals. They were right about how to beat the Iraqi army, just not how to make the peace and turn the country into a democracy. Why should they be right? They had risen through the ranks commanding tank brigades, not intelligence, training, and police units. They knew how to destroy things, just not rebuild them.
In any case, back to the problem of reforming the military. It went from a high priority to urgent because of the war. It is fascinating to watch units as they rotate around the world in order to finally end up after a couple of years where he wants them to ultimately be based. Musical chairs on a regimental or brigade level.
So, circumstances pushed us into Iraq, and some how it was all Rumsfeld's fault that the Clinton Administration had not purchased more than a handful of armored Humvees. Or upgraded the body armor of the troops. These deficiencies were not even noticed until unarmored Humvees (designed to operate behind the lines where armor was unnecessary) were found to provide no protection from IEDs, and ditto for the body armor.
So, if Rumsfeld had known about these problems, what should he have done? Waited another year to invade, allowing sanctions and our U.N. mandate to fail? The No-Fly Zones to lose their U.N. approval?
But, while the armed forces are being completely overhauled, reorganized, and repositioned, he managed to get the new body armor and a lot of armored Humvees, Strykers, etc. to the troops.
Now tell me which of the other Secretaries of Defense (not War) in our history could have accomplished as much in such a short time?
Iraq is broke. We broke it.
No we didn't. We have done nothing but (a) depose a bloody dictator, making it possible for him to be put on trial; (b) work to rebuild the infrastructure; (c) help assemble a group of Iraqi natives to form a democratic government and nurse them along the unfamiliar path of compromise and representative government; and (d) hunt down and kill terrorists and insurgents who desperately want Iraq not to work as a peaceful democracy.
The people who broke and are breaking Iraq are (1) Saddam Hussein, (2) Al Qaida in Iraq and similar outside terrorist Islamic groups, (3) native Shiite extremists like Sadr, and (4) native Sunni holdovers from Saddam's regime.
To say we broke Iraq is mendacious and evil. We are the good guys. We really, truly, are. And the proof that it can work is the Kurds. Their area of Iraq is peaceful, safe, and becoming more prosperous every day. They love us and we made their lives immeasurably better. But the Left never mentions the Kurds because that doesn't fit their script. The Kurds are cognitive dissonance for the Left.
If there's a mistake we made, it was not splitting the country into separate countries for each of the major religious sects.
But this idea that we are the bad guys who broke a functioning Iraq is just evil. The argument completely ignores the fact that the evil acts being committed in Iraq are not by us, but by the bad guys. Using the logic of the Left, it would be impossible to ever liberate a people who were being oppressed by a determined group of fanatics because the fanatics would use violence, and according to the Left that would be our fault. Apparently dictatorships must be left in place because the scrabble between competing interests after the dictator is deposed would entail violence, and that must be avoided at all costs. By this logic, the Left would have had to oppose the American Revolution, since it deposed a dictator and resulted in decades of war and upset and turmoil.
The fact is that the Left has been against military action since the day after 9/11 because a Republican was president, and they are against anything a Republican does. If a Democrat had been president they would have supported the war, as they did the Bosnia attacks, which had no U.N. authorization either. And we're still in Bosnia, years and years and years after Clinton assured us it would be a strictly one-year committment.
So no, we did not break Iraq, and it is evil to say we did.
Re: Boehner and insulting generals.
BFD. Insulting generals is like insulting Congressmen. They are paid to take it. Indeed, the top generals live better than many Congressmen, with the equivalent of presonal jets, personal servants, etc.
More importantly, there just aren't that many of them, in comparison to all the rest of the active duty and retired military. Maybe 1/1,000 or so.
So, Kerry called tens of millions of vets and active military stupid, and Boehner blamed the Iraqi planning partially on tens of generals. Frankly, I don't think that insulting the tens of generals is going to swing the election either way. Any election.
Post a Comment