Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dan:

John Kerry is a consummate gentleman who was not talking about Bush, but rather the Republican party as a whole. With all the evil lying and mistakes that the Republicans are responsible for, someone has to hold them accountable, and John Kerry is bold enough to do so. His service in Viet Nam as a decorated war hero prepared him for these duties today.

Now that I have finished the media’s rendition of what Kerry did, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. Kerry DOES need to apologize, and he certainly is guilty of slinging mud, while at the same time accusing the Republicans of doing so. Its just yet another good example of how
John F(lip-flop) Kerry operates.

This is the legacy of Howard Dean—partisan rancor disguised as statesmenship with the media playing along. Just read the headlines: “Kerry Comments Rile Bush Campaign.” Not “Kerry Launches Most Vitriolic Attack in Modern Presidential History,” or “Observers Shocked by Kerry’s Sneering Aside.” Can you imagine what would happen if Bush said anything even close to that? It’d be the biggest media event since the moon landing. I knew the decks were stacked against us in the media, but the extent of it is truly amazing. Only George Orwell could truly explain it.

Hummm! Let me think a second!
Have republicans every lied?
Watergate, secret bombing missions during the Vietnam war, Iran-contra, Bushes national guard service, No weapons of mass destruction.

You right, that darn flip flopping Kerry’s is just a big fink!

If you want to defend your ideology you are going to have to come up with a better strategy.

Marc Racicot has no business asking for an apology in a political race for a candid comment caught by an open mike. He has no business telling the Democratic candidate, the challenger to their incumbent that he can’t criticize Bush performance, especially in terms of his excessively close lockstep with business interests throughout his administration.

I mean, when did the RNC become such a whiny bunch of spoiled brats? When did they start taking offense at every negative comment? And since when has Bush or his compatriots run clean campaigns themselves? When did Bush stop making his little smartass comments about his political opponents? I mean, I don’t support every kind of negative campaigning, but your skin is too thin if you can’t take your opponent calling you a crook!

I mean, if he’s not, then tell me who was on the guest list for Dick Cheney’s little meeting on energy policy! Tell me how close he was to Kenneth “Kenny Boy” Lay, and how that affected his judgment on the Enron scandal. Tell me why George Bush allowed the energy companies to squeeze California when the generation capacity is there. And tell me how giving no bid contracts to a company your Vice President once lead (and who know, may one day return to) doesn’t look bad!

If the Bush administration had wanted to protect him from the image of a crook, they should have avoided all the nice little compromising positions he took.

Criticize Bush’s performance, Stephen? Yeah, that’s what Kerry was doing. Very statesmanlike mudslinging and vitriol that was. Very substantial stuff.

Another thing—notice how in each of the preceding posts that defend Kerry, nobody can just say “Yeah, that was rude. Kerry shouldn’t have done it,” and move on. No, they have to show that it was not only okay but appropriate, so we hear about everything from Enron to bombing raids in Vietnam to Watergate! All this in defense of a schoolyard insult. Talk about trying to change the subject! It’s not enough that Bush is the devil—it has to be proven that even Kerry’s s*** smells good.

I criticize George Bush all the time, almost as much as I do Kerry, and I’d hammer him if he said what Kerry did. Not only does it degrade the tone of our national debate, it’s self-destructive politics. Gore did huge damage to himself just sighing and rolling his eyes during a debate. If this is how Kerry wants to come across—to sneer, bully and deride instead of persuade—then Karl Rove can sleep a lot easier at night.

Kerry un-statesmen like? I am shocked!
I though this was an election year!
I personally am looking forward to a no holds barred wrestling cage match between Gomer Pile (Kerry) and Homer Simpson (Bush)

Let the mud slinging begin!!!!!

Martin: in his latest stump speeches, despite Kerry’s positive vote on the authorization to use force(click here), Bush joked that Kerry would have waited for Saddam to lose the next election. That’s not mudslinging isn’t it, and worse, unfair mudslinging?

That nice little comment about Kerry having been in Washington long enough to take both sides of many issues isn’t mudslinging, is it? Nor are all the multitude of veiled, condescending remarks he made during his state of the union address, right?

You’re saying that with Bush and all his compatriots raining vitriol down, Bush shouldn’t get any criticism in return, especially considering widespread dissatisfaction concerning his policies?

Give me a break. Bush’s running his father’s kind of campaign, with an advisor well known for dirty tricks. Answer Kerry’s criticism, but by everything that’s sacred don’t tell me Bush has the moral high-ground on negative campaigning.

I haven’t said anybody has the moral high-ground. What I said is that if Bush says anything like Kerry did yesterday, I will be seriously put off. “These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I’ve ever seen” is a FAR cry from saying that Kerry is on both sides of every issue. How can you even compare them? You call that mudslinging? It’s a comment which directs us to look at the issues, to actually evaluate Kerry’s record, which is exactly what we need to do when we compare candidates. How can that not be playing fair? Saying that Kerry would have waited for Saddam to lose the next election is definitely a sharp jab, but it’s hardly an example of contemptuous name-calling. It’s in the tradition of “Where’s the Beef?” and “I knew John Kennedy, and Senator, you’re no John Kennedy.” It’s even more like Lieberman’s comment that if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam would still be president of Iraq—it’s a good line. And again, it invites us to evaluate and compare each candidate’s positions. It also has the virtue of being slightly humerous, which makes it more palatable to most voters than letting one’s naked hatred show through. As I said before, if Kerry wants to keep that up, it’s going to be his funeral.

If he only meant to say that privately, It’s inappropriate to act as if it was a new strategy for his campaign. As for the headlines you mentioned earlier, I doubt calling the Republicans crooks is especially vitriolic, and I doubt there were gasps of shock as the lines went out. Perhaps a little laughter.

The headline is indeed appropriate for the sole reason that the RNC chose to even respond to what is a common campaign accusation. It’s just one more example of the desperation of a campaign that can’t imagine why the American public doesn’t like them more.

If Kerry becomes Presidnet, then how is he going to work with Congress, the majority of whom are “crooked and lying”?

It only proved to illuminate how divisive and partisan that he would be.

Haliburton - V.P. Cheney connection and favors = crooked. Selling out the environment and the American people’s health to corporate interests for the sake of campaign backing = crooked.

Bush deceiving the American people on Iraq = lying. Failing to be be uniter not a divider = lying.

Many other examples but you get the point, IT IS INDDEED these lying, crooked people in the Whitehouse that owe everyone else an apology for the mockery they have made of the concept of public service.

Okay, David. I guess Bush is lucky then that he doesn’t have to just run on his own record that you so despise but against Kerry’s. Virtually everything Bush has done, Kerry voted for. If Bush lied, Kerry lied. If Bush sold out to corporate interests, so did Kerry. Kerry has carried Bush’s water for three years now and I’m thrilled at the prospect of watching him try to run against his own record. John Kerry: “I hate all the things I’ve voted for! I hate myself! I served in Vietnam! Vote for me instead of the Great Satan W!”

Stephen:

Remember the hullabaloo when Bush inadvertently was caught on microphone calling a reporter a name ( i shall not use the particular name here, but it rhymes somewhat with Daschle…lol).

Democrats were furious, the newspapers were all over Bush for his lack of decorum, people like you were calling for apologies. Yet now, with the shoe on the other foot, you attempt to paint a wholly different picture. You excuse Kerry’s statements, you focus the issue back to Bush, and you lose yourself in the midst of your grand hypocrisy.

Blame them each for their similar behaviors, or excuse them each for the same. But when you excuse Kerry and condemn Bush, you simply show partisanship, which is most unbecoming.

Cynically I don’t mind when Kerry spouts off like that so long as it gets well publicized. If he wants to Dean himself I’m all for it.

Without even mentioning the equally vitriolic, vicious smear tactics of the RNC and their media echo chamber, I’ll point out that Kerry’s comments were directed at the Republican attack apparatus, not Bush himself. He was commenting on the RNC ad blitz and Rove’s crowd of crooked spin doctors.

Since when have rightists been opposed to calling things as they are?

If this were a Democratic writer in the Democratic column writing that Bush owes Kerry an apology for taking all those corportate bribes, I would have responded with exactly the same disdain.

Fact is, Kerry has not been President. Fact is Kerry has taken new facts, information, likelihood of passage, constituency benefit, etc. into consideration when casting his votes in the Senate as does every Senator. Anyone who has watched more than a couple hours of C-Span II would know that based on attached ammendments or last minute committee addons to a bill, you can get Ralph Nader to vote against a clean water bill. All you have to do is tie a dirty skies ammendment to the clean water act. Nader would vote it down.

Don’t give me this crap about Senate voting records unless you are willing to put the entire record of the bill from Committee to Senate Vote out as evidence. There are a host of reasons why any responsible, intelligent, and patriotic representative would vote for or against what on the surface appear to be either very good or very bad, bills. Getting bills passed is a matter of compromise and there is not a single Senator in that great house who has not compromised, changed their vote, or appeared to be against what they are for, or vice versa, because of other conditions of a bill to be voted on.

I have heard this all before- just with the last president. Those of you who are so sure that Bush is oh-so-evil, lied about everything and took bribes from Halliburton (a rather laughable charge given the political stakes involved) should go a couple of weeks back on the “third party” column and read my article comparing the attacks against Bush with the attacks against Clinton in the 1990s. this kind of “debate” will get us nowhere, and will not solve any issues. But remember, focusing on Kerry’s ridiculous comments just makes the debate ABOUT them and not about the issues.

If the shoe fits…Bush is a liar and a crook. Do I now owe him and the American people an apology? As for the evidence of same, read the papers, listen to the new reports. Where are the weapons of mass destruction promised us? Where are the millions of jobs? Where is the bi-partisan fellowship Bush promised to forge with the Congress? Where is the integrity he promised to bring back to the office of the Presidency? Where is the humility he promised to govern with? Where is the freedom from government intrusion into our everyday lives? Where is the open and honest government he promised to head? Where is the brighter tomorrow he promised under his leadership(?)? Where is the prescription drug coverage he promised?

Bush is unfit to lead a boy scout troop let a long the most powerful nation on Earth. He is now, and was then ill-equipped for the job. He is liar and a fraud. Do I owe Bush and the American people another apology?

Stephen, CNN reports that “Kerry campaign official David Wade later told reporters that Kerry knew his microphone was on at the time he made the comment in question.” Therefore, I don’t think Kerry “meant to say that privately.”

“These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I’ve ever seen.”

Martin, you think that any headline should print “Kerry Launches Most Vitriolic Attack in Modern Presidential History”

get real
martin

This is all so classic. When’s the last time we didn’t hear about a candidate who hasn’t had an “open mike” moment? Anyway, I think it takes plenty of chutzpah for anyone to accuse Kerry of not focusing on the issues after watching the GOP ad that talks about the cost of Kerry’s haircuts and his shirts.

And Bush never apologized to Adam Clymer when he was caught. If anything, I think this helps Kerry. It proves to me he knows who the enemy is — and you can’t win if you don’t know that. Not that I needed further proof, but there’s a reason they call it the “silly season.”

Truman said something like, “I just tell the truth, and they think it’s hell.” Kerry is just telling the truth about the Republican attack machine. I don’t think Kerry’s comments on that subject can be disputed. Just look at the McCain presidential bid in 2000. The attacks used on him in the primaries were disgusting. There is ample evidence to support the claim, and he has no reason to appologize.

“What evidence does John Kerry have of corruption or lying by President Bush?”

Now, this is a seperate subject, but I think there’s a case to be made for that as well. This is something that I’d love to hear thoughts on:

Given Tenet’s testimony from yesterday, I would say that there is an excellent arguement to be made concluding that somewhere in the upper Administration there was a massive misuse of the CIA and this nation’s intelligence. If Tenet told the members of the Administration (at least Cheney and Rice) that they were misusing the intelligence, then why did they continue to do it? Also, it is now clear that Cheney’s office was involved in setting up a seperate intelligence channel that Tenet never knew existed until just recently! The first word of the agency’s name is Central for a reason - *all* intelligence passes through them. Tenet is the *definitive* source for intelligence, and Bush himself has said so. Setting up an alternative stovepipe channel for intelligence that fits the Administration’s agenda is immoral, and decreases the effectiveness and reliability of our Intelligence, which is yet another item that decreases our national security.

you know, when the Republicans called Clinton a Rapist and a Murderer….i think that was worse……

it’s alright for the Republicans to spend 8 years trying to rip apart Clinton over a blowjob,

but say anything negative about Bush and the Democrats are out of line….

if you can dish it…..you better be able to take it.

Uh Rob, I think the Republicans ripped Clinton because he lied under oath about said oral pleasure. That’s something even Martha didn’t do.

But you are right, there is no high ground in politics for either side.

uh george, republicans were ripping clinton(the same way dems rip bush) long before said act occured, lying under oath is just were the fit hit the shan.
martin

So Kerry knew he had a hot mic? This keeps getting better and better. I didn’t think Kerry had it in him. Way to go, John.

I don’t think it’s a surprise at all that Kerry knew his mic was on. He’s been doing this for months, after all. You don’t think he’s aware of his surroundings at this point? What he said is demonstrably true, and he meant it.

Interesting set of comments about something not really a surprise to most of us. The Dems think the Bush media team is a lying crop of propagandists. The Repubs don’t want anyone to think that they might lie about anything. Kerry slips a comment in not identifying who the liars are that he is talking about and we’re off to the races.

If the Repubs got their way this would be the race between the great C.I.C. and the great vacillator. If the Dems got their way it would be the race against the great hope of democracy and the slickest liar to occupy the White House since Slippery Dick Nixon. The idea of a man who once charged toward a sniper’s position being a Great Vacillator is funny in a way I think the Repubs. haven’t caught on to yet.

Meanwhile the issues go slipping into the background. What a “great” story, Kerry thinks the Bush team is lying about him to the public. Is this supposed to be news to anyone? Now the liars want an apology or else they will what? Lie better? That would be a treat.

Branding the opposing candidate a liar is something the Bush team has done quite well in the past. Branding their own candidate as something else is not working so well now that he is having a hard time hiding behind 9/11 anymore. Any residual glory adhering to Bush is quickly rubbing off with his frantic attempts to disrupt the work of the commission investigating that event. What is that “good old boy” trying to hide? The fact that he cut and ran in the middle of that day of crisis is my personal bet. What’s yours?
Henri

Am I the only one that sees the hilarious similarity to the plot line of an old West Wing episode?

Anybody?

If you don’t believe this was as calculated as Janet Jackson in ‘Nipplegate’, I have some OmniMedia stock I’d like to sell you.

The Kerry campaign knew the defensive Republicans would jump all over this like an Asian call girl at your hotel room door. What would follow are a wealth of stinging retorts:

‘Bush is again avoiding substanitive issues…’
‘Look what they did to McCain in S. Carolina…’
Look what they did to Max Cleland…’

Brillant!

John Kerry doesn’t owe “America” an apology. I’m a proud American, and I’d never ask apology of a man over expressing a sentiment with which I so strongly agree.

What Democrats say to get elected = truth.

What Bush says that doesn’t square with this “truth”= lies.

Hence, Bush is a “liar.” Absolutely brilliant formula you guys have working there, but even in a country where the educational system is controlled by Democrats, I doubt you’ll get a majority to believe that Bush is a liar. Not just to suit the presidential ambitions of John Kerry.

My favorite example of how hatred of Bush denatures the logical faculties of Democrats is this one: “Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. But look how much we hate him! See, Bush lied once again!” Truly amazing.

The fact that Democrats have chosen to believe that an incredibly moderate center-of-the-road Republican like Bush is somehow Ghengis Khan is a testament only to their own all-consuming desperation to see a Democrat in the White House—even one, apparently, who has voted for virtually every major policy that Bush has proposed.

Bert, I actually posted about the similarity to The West Wing episode on my blog.

For those who don’t know, in an episode from about three years ago, President Bartlett was talking through a camera to a reporter. He said about his opponent in the presidential race something to the effect of “He’s a .22 in a .45 magnum world,” while the microphone was hot. His campaign claimed that he didn’t know the mic was on, but at the end of the episode, he confided to his chief of staff that he did indeed know.

well martin,

we could turn Education over to the Republicans so they can gut any funding that it has so they can build better nukes and have studies done disproving global warming….

oh wait…we already did that….

keep em scared…keep em stupid….the Republican mantra…

as long as ye got jesus…..why would you need to think?!

(grumble…..)

Martin: “I doubt you’ll get a majority to believe that Bush is a liar.”

Unless these various whitewash commissions and investigations actually develop some teeth, I think you’re right. Why do you think he’s reluctant to engage fully with them? I can think of only a short list of possible answers, and among them is the possibility that Bush’s strategists are afraid that the answers will not be sufficiently strong and thereby cause an increase in the number of people who question his credibility in general. Quite a pickle he’s worked himself into in that regard.

To Mellisa Edge:

He never mentioned Bush by name, but you mention Kerry and those who vote for him directly, and you do pass judgment on what he has done. You do not know what he has or has not repented for, and you do not have a full understanding of his morals. As a Christian, you must acknowledge your ignorance of those things, and give people the benefit of the doubt.

You do not know the source of his disdain for those he sees as corrupt comes from. Does the Holy Spirit not work to move us against corruption? You tell us that his actions are not motivated by Christ, or God’s grace, but would you be the witness to that grace, to Christ’s workings, or would Kerry himself be the one who feels the calling?

You imagine him condemned, you imagine him a hypocrite, because unlike Bush, he keeps his religious practices largely private. If Kerry does have communion with the holy triniity, he does not have to make public demonstration of that. Christ himself told his followers not to make great shows of their piety, warning that those who did already had their reward in the regard of others.

Bush, for all his outward piety, is not above making snide and derogatory remarks, of nursing what some might perceive as excessive pride in his own salvation, in his own righteousness. Paul sets the example, when he throws himself in with all the rest of humanity as a sinner, and when he confesses his own wrongdoing, his own sin of pride in Acts, as he transforms from Agent for the Temple, dragging Christians off to a death by stoning or to be shut away in dungeons, to the apostle whose writings and philosophy saturates the New Testament. He casts off what he once considered the source of salvation, that is, piety and strict adherence to the law, and humbles himself and acknowledges his human inability to stop screwing up.

Bush, whatever his sins, and whatever he’s repented for, seems to be unwilling to confess his mistakes, to entertain doubts as to his rightness, and righteousness on the issue. I worry about that in any person who bears responsibility as a leader. It is strongly off-putting to those who genuinely worry for the welfare of our country that he does not admit to the mistakes that most observers agree he has made. Bush needs to admit that he is only a leader by the grace of God, and what God has given him, God has made sure the voters of this country can take away.

Kerry’s soul is his own concern, and his sins are between him and God. Whether that’s obvious to us or not, is a matter I don’t think we should trust our judgment to much on.

Stephen: Amen, brother. And Gaelen, once again, supporting Bush does not mean believing he can walk on water (I use that language in deference to the religious mood of this blog tonight). I agree that Bush should be more forthcoming with the various commissions and hope he will be (he has now agreed, for instance, to answer all questions of the 9-11 commission). I also hope that the other side will be a little more reasonable, tone down the ad-hominem attacks and not rush to assume a “whitewash” and corruption at every turn. Was Kay’s report, sponsored by the White House, an example of a whitewash? It sure didn’t look like one, corresponding as it did exactly with Bush’s dip in the polls. Senators Byrd and Kennedy, for example, would love nothing more in an election year than to drag Bush in front of the cameras for an eight hour grilling. Kennedy especially would adore having another platform on which to huff and puff about the Iraq war as a neocon plot cooked up in Texas to benefit Halliburton. These commissions too easily become occasions for partisan grandstanding, diversions from their ostensible goals of actual fact-finding, and Bush’s reluctance to have himself or his subordinates dragged through the mud in these circuses is perfectly understandable.

“as long as ye got jesus…..why would you need to think?!” —rob

As long as this is what Democrats think of Republicans, I’m not optimistic about the chances for a civil discussion of the issues in the upcoming election. Kerry and the dems really do believe, and their Howard-Dean styled rhetoric demonstrates it, that Republicans are nothing but a bunch of unwashed bloodthirsty religious bigots who want nothing but to line their own pockets while they usher in a new Dark Age. I admired Bush for that congratulatory call to Kerry and his invitation to debate the real issues. So far though, and probably because Kerry has voted for pretty much all of the Bush agenda, Kerry has chosen to avoid the issues in favor of this kind of divisive ad-hominem sterotyping and demagogery.

I might be seeing this issue through slightly different gunsights than the rest of you, but here it goes:

What better way to divert attention from his liberal voting record than to say what he did?

What better way to separate himself from Bush on his votes (which he seems to have changed his mind on… in effect backdating his political stance to pre 9/11 thinking) on resolutions such as the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war resolution?

What better way to make himself look like a fighter to his own party (I question Kerry’s toughness… when I see Kerry, I think of Dukakis with a favorable military record)?

What better way to shore up hope among the “anyone but Bush” crowd that they indeed, just one week after Edwards became the latest casualty of the primary season, made the right decision?

With the maximum coverage that Kerry’s campaign knew he would get (from a statement that didn’t sound to me very spontaneous… rather… it sounded like a kid stuttering, trying to remember his lines in the 4th grade school program), and certain knee jerk response from the RNC, I do think that he got a ton of media mileage from this… statement!

While I hope that Kerry is still looking for work after the election, I say touche! He took the initiative… if not the offensive, on the smear battlefront! Bush needs to decide if he would rather seem like whiner, a fighter, or a statesmen. Whiners whine… fighters fight… statesmen treat these campaign jabs for what they are… mean spirited jabs… and retaliate with a smart, provacative response!

Gosh… I like campaign years!

I think you are all to serious. It’s a long way to November. In my book we should listen to what Senator Kerry says. If anyone would know lying and being a “Crook” when he sees it, it would be a member of congress!!

Cheers,

Craig

Different Gunsights, huh? Well, you might want to have them adjusted because the shots aren’t hitting the target.

I’ve posted elsewhere some of the big votes he’s had on military matters. He was consistent on supporting defense since 1997. He voted for both wars, for the Homeland Security department, and for the defense budgets of this country since that year.

So, Dukakis with a military record? Lousy comparison. Bush as a statesman? Even worse. This is a man whose managed to alienate a large part of the rest of the world, and even those within his own country. If he had risen to the occasion and not simply taken the political capital 9/11 gave him and use it to cram an agenda down people’s throat, he would not be having to worry about any challenger, much less a democrat. Instead, he took this country from it’s greatest degree of political unity, to it being the most politically divided it’s been in decades. A statesman would still be holding on to that kind of unity and popularity long afterwards, because his government would reflect a kind of dignified way of dealing with things.

I think Kerry though he was speaking too low for the mike to pick up, and quite easily underestimated the amplification power of the mike. As a former Telecom student, I can tell you that microphones are not as simple as they look. If you’ve ever been to a church or a function where people are using mikes who don’t understand them, you can easily get feeds that are too loud, too soft, mixes that let one feed get drowned in another. As for the statement, it was quite partisan, but it wasn’t very specific. It’s not like he called Bush an a******, or Dennis Hastert a rat bastard. It’s a charge old as dirt in the political profession and it makes the GOP look hypersensitive to criticism, which is the last thing they need to be doing, since they are trying to maintain how right they are to the voters. If one protests too much about being called on things, one might think you have reason to be overprotective of your reputation.

“Instead, he took this country from it’s greatest degree of political unity, to it being the most politically divided it’s been in decades.”

Oh please. Where were you during the 90’s? Remember the cigar? Remember Newt? How about the 2000 election? This country is nothing but policitally divided and has been since the Gulf War I. And most of the vile temperment has come since the Democrats became the national opposition party.

george, you are right, but I think the important figure is how undivided we were immediatly after 9/11/01.

you have to admit that we have fallen pretty far since then, when it comes to country unity.

C’mon guys, it’s an election, not a run for sainthood. This isn’t turning out to be worse than any other recent election - on both sides. Does Bush “misspeak”? Does Kerry change his mind? Does the sun rise in the east? Are all politicians a little free with the parameters of the truth? Give me a break.

The main point here is that Kerry may have exaggerated slightly, insofar as he combined “crooks” with “liars” - one is a crime, the other merely a common character fault. On the other hand, considering what’s going on over at Halliburton (not the Iraq stuff, the $180 Million bribe in Nigeria) may prove him to be right insofar as Chaney is concerned. Nor should we forget Miranda breaking into an all too insecure (but private) computer system. Nor the feeding of Valerie Plame’s name to Novak (that is a felony, remember). Nor …. and I could go on for quite a while, but to what purpose - if you agree with Martin, nothing (other than a smoking gun - duck hunting, anyone?) will convince you that these guys really are crooks.

Nevertheless, we’re wasting time here - the real election will be fought over Bush’s incompetence in far too many areas: security, economy, education, healthcare - in fact, all except wardrobe on the flightdeck!

Kerry should first apologize for stabbing his country in the back during the Vietnam War.

Ricky -

Yeah, after Dick Cheney explains exactly what he was doing when he should’ve been in the service - do you know?

And where was Rummy? And Wolfie? And Perle? (Actually, I forgot to list him in the crooks list - what exactly was he doing on the Board of Directors when Lord Black stole zillions? and how much did he himself profit?) The list could go on endlessly - they’re a bunch of old farts ready to get kids killed so they can get their jollies about how big they are.

Ricky, wise up before it’s too late.

Ricky -

I’m sorry. I forgot you’re the one in love with Jenna. There’s no hope. She’s going to get the wrath of the public for the family’s sins - Uncle Marvin will make sure she has a nice nestegg in Saudi Arabia, but it sure as hell will crimp her livestyle to go around in a black burka.

We can argue until we’re blue in the face as we pitch conspiracy theory vs. conspiracy theory (i.e. Kerry sold out his country vs. Dick Cheny did, Kerry’s a Hanoi-Jane vs. Bush is a liar etc.)

As one who often finds himself arguing politics with friends and co-workers, I’m finding that most non-party affiliated types really don’t buy any of it, or find it all to be be predictable mud-slinging in an election year. What I’ve found enormously successful, however, is repeatedly pointing out how Kerry has voted for almost all of Bush’s policies. This not only helps convince people of the original bi-partisan nature of most of Bush’s agenda, it causes them to question Kerry and his motives for now running against his own record. I don’t even have to use the words “flip flop”—it’s easy enough to let people come to this conclusion themselves. Once the dust clears a little after all these charges and countercharges, I’m confident that Kerry will find it very hard to get traction against Bush on any of the issues.

As for flip-flopping….he’s a democrat, a liberal democrat….he’s allowed to change his mind.

Conservatives and Republicans stay the course….they know their ideas and ideals and stick to em.

It doesn’t necessarily make them right. Conviction does not mean correct.

The ability to realise your mistakes and evaluate prior decisions is the only way to evolve.

Oh wait…..you guys don’t believe in evolution….

I think that this story, about the Republicans lying in a BIG way to members of their own party, bares upon this story. Kerry was not speaking about the Bush Administration, but it has become increasingly clear to me since the WMD debacle that this sort of allegation might apply to the Bush Administration as well.

Oh wait…..you guys don’t believe in evolution…. —rob

I’d love to write a long post disputing these constant stereotypes about Republicans, but it’s Friday night and I’ve got a full schedule. I just back from a book-burning and am on my way to a top-secret Haliburton neo-con ritual where we’re gonna sacrifice some of those crying little orphans from John Edwards’ other America. Then we’re gonna join hands and summon our master Satan who will hopefully tell us what country to invade next (but you’ve already assumed all of this, haven’t you—I can’t tell you Democrats nothin’).

ok martin…you get points for comedy….

What was it that Emerson said? A foolish consistency is the Hobgoblin of small minds and divines? If you haven’t changed your mind in twenty or thirty years, you haven’t been really thinking. Kerry has changed his mind during his term. But that can be a strength. It should be noted that in late 90’s Kerry changed from being anti-defense spending to being for it. He did kill hundreds of millions of dollars in intelligence services spending- killing an illegal slush fund. He in fact increased real CIA spending, doing so over his president’s objections.

But even by the foolish consistency standards, Bush’s changes of heart are just terrible. Can you defend a cutting the EPA’s building decontaminiation programming the same day the ricin attack hit the capitol?

Bush said he was standing solidly with the firefighters and policemen, yet his administration cuts funding to both groups. The military fares no better. With the drastic increases in those claiming or eligible to claim veteran’s benefits, Bush has not sufficiently funded the Veteran’s administration to take the added load.

Of course, he’s not shy of increasing spending elsewhere, to the tune of 23 billion dollars in pork, and deficits over a half trillion dollars. He’s increased spending faster than LBJ. This from a guy who was against increased spending, increased government. Now, as a Liberal myself, I don’t mind such things, but I do mind when somebody accuses me of being tax-and-spend, turns around and does the same thing.

Only Bush isn’t tax and spend, he’s gamble and spend. He’s going to lower everybody’s taxes during a deficit period, ensuring Americans will have to foot the bill later, and then hope that the economy will get better. So far, even after three years of such policies, the economic gains are not showing up, and our dollar’s value is weakening. The economically sensible path would have been to restore the old tax system sufficiently to restore fiscal balance, to ensure that even if we had to run deficits, we wouldn’t be adding a half trillion dollars at a throw.

If you were to ask me what the biggest problem with Bush is, I would say the man is just not dependable. You can’t take his word for anything, you can’t get him to admit he’s wrong, either, until it’s so blaringly obvious it loses him points at the polls. If you try to challenge him on something, he tries to deny you the standing to do so further. His arguments, too often, hinge on perjorative words and emotional appeals. The self-righteousness is just piled on.

In comparison, Kerry seems rather stable, rather realistic. He may not be as animated as Bush is, but at least he’s not such a cartoon.

Stephen, nobody’s objecting to a candidate’s right to change one’s mind about any given policy in response to changing events, but that’s not even close to Kerry’s pattern.

That’s Bush’s pattern, actually, as when his adminstration dropped its opposition to nation-building and then, when war came upon us, embraced it like no adminstration has since the Marshall Plan.

The only thing that’s changed when it comes to the Patriot Act, No-Child-Left-Behind, tax-cuts and the Iraq war, all of which Kerry supported, is that now Kerry is running for president. Kerry ended up in this box because he had to court a Democratic party who, drunk on Deanism and ad-hominem hatred of Bush, made a primary-season litmus test of opposing the administration on absolutely everything. Kerry is in real trouble when voters really become aware of this, which now they are not.

If you want to talk about unfortunate timing, consider Kerry’s railing against the Patriot Act at the same time that bombs are going off in Madrid and the New York subways are being patrolled by bomb-sniffing dogs. Yep, there’s too much draconian security in this country! We need to loosen up a little—try selling that line!

Talking about those bombs in Madrid, pretty shocking weren’t they. The pictures are terrible and my heart really goes out to those people.
But goshdarnit, I guess this means the war on terrorism is working isn’t it?
It seems to have struck fear into the hearts of the terrorist all over the world hasn’t it?I bet they really thought twice before they blew up those trains didnt they? Hah! we showed ‘em!

I mean look, its been two years and Al-Qaeda is gone right?- oh wait they aren’t.
Well atleast Iraq is in a stable situation now- hmmmm…oops well i guess not reeeaallly.
Well- the world is certainly safer now isnt it, I mean that is, for people who don’t live in Muslim countries, and for people in the rest of the world who don’t take flights or get on the train or drink any tap water or anything.

Good job George Bush,you turned the world into ONE BIG ISRAEL VS PALESTINE(where by the way nobody ever wins)gotta hand it to you,if you want me I’ll be hiding in a spider hole, waiting for the world to come to its senses.

In response to this article, I think that all of the human response by John Kerry, was what any human being would of done. John Kerry, has been politically smothered by Bush with his lude comments, commercials, speeches, and etcetera. I think that this apology business is just another way of taking down someone while they come up fighting. Whether, or not he meant to say this live or loud he did and, with all that he has been hit with by Bush. He is entitled to fight anything that Bush said period. My response to the democratic and republican fight is crap. Democrats may have not had the most responsive leaders but, you can’t judge the person by the party…..

Huh?

The PATRIOT Act is not necessarily more effective for being more invasive. Invasive police forces exist all over the world, and coupled with them is the same crime problem. The law breakers, the terrorists and everybody else simply adapt.

You assume the best of the people who will use this law, and that is a naive assumption. Also naive is the idea that such invasive procedures can take the place of good old-fashioned detective work. It is the capacity for creative and disciplined thinking that can allow police officers the edge over criminals and terrorists who have adapted to the assumptions and the limitations of the law officers they face.

In the meantime, our sentencing will be proportionate to the crimes, and the innocent will not have to endure the humiliation and degradation of being deprived of their constitutional rights.

Our system depends on the idea that those who are citizens of this country can expect their leaders to remain under the law, and themselves within it’s protection. Otherwise, one group is arbitrarily empowered, and thereby corrupted, and another is disenfranchized, and thereby radicalized. Look at the overseas news, about the riots, the sectarian, political, and cultural violence, and you can see what our system avoids, and what any disruption of that system promises.

Take heed of the warnings of history, of the warnings of world events, and let us preserve our country in it’s best possible form.

Additionally: I think you misinterpret the Dean phenomenon. To conservatives, it looks like he stirred up a rebellion, set up a standard of opposition. I think that’s erroneous.

I think resentment in the party was a grassroots thing, something that filtered up from below. It’s not, I think that the politicians didn’t want to oppose Bush, they just thought that doing so forcefully would be contrary to their voters wishes. Combine this with the Centrist sensibility of going along with conservative policy to get along, this made for a rather stagnant response to Bush’s oppressive political offensive against liberalism.

When Dean finally came around and tapped into that resentment, I think nobody expected such a powerful response, but now they know it’s there, they feel safe to oppose Bush as harshly as they do now.

In a way, it’s liberating, really. Bush has time and time again disregarded the needs of his Democrat constituency (as president, you represent everybody) His failure to compromise for their benefit has given them the impression that he opposes them on everything, and since his people are highly undiplomatic with their language towards the political left, and those who dissent, nobody feels that inclined to hold back, or to concede too much.

Just goes to show you, the kindness you show to those who disagree with you is important.

Fair enough, but please tell me how the Patriot Act is uncessarily invasive? Which part of it—specifically—takes us over that brink?

In my experience, many who seem to believe that the act represents some sort of police-state totalitarianism (only because they’ve heard Democratic presidential candidates say so incessantly) are not only unaware of the act’s actual provisions, but they don’t even know what the Patriot Act IS. I’ve had people pretty much say, when I ask them what it is, that it’s, you know, that bastard Bush’s tyrannical edict that abolishes all civil rights.

So please, what part of the Patriot Act do you object to?

I oppose the fact that The Patriot Act allows an American citizen to be stripped of their citizenship and held without formal charges against them. Now I’m not a fan of the slippery slope argument, and I’m not going to suggest that posters of ‘Big Brother’ will soon be everwhere, but it does seem that affording the government this power is a huge step in the wrong direction.

I know that the the CIA is going to be careful about who they arrest in this manner, but I’m sure that it will be misused in some cases. Imagine being that person who was wrongfully arested under The Patriot Act and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

It is widely documented that Bush and the Republicans are liars. They purposefully distort the truth regardless of issue, Irag or Medicare. There are countless book dedicated to BUSH’s LIES and most are truthful and damning. Using Google and searching “BUSH LIES” you get 1.8million hits vs only 0.7million hits for “Clinton lies” (considering there are 2 Clintons this is really even lower).

To repeat, Bush Lies every day every way.

to be fair mark, there are also two bushes and one is currently our lying i mean sitting president.

Martin -

I believe that 41 was never really accused of lying - clueless perhaps, but not lying. And he finished his term 10 months before the web browser was introduced.

I’m willing to bet that over 90% of the Bush lying references are to 43.

Kerry shouldn’t apologize for calling the republicans liers and crooks. The republicans should apolodize for being liers and crooks!

martin, this comment was deleted for all the name calling. Please critique the politicians with all your heart but please cease with the derogatory name calling.

Thanks, WatchBlog Manager

dear watchblog maneger,

my apoligies

and the point I was writing about had to do with lying in regards to Bush 41 and Iran Contra

Don’t you guys ever read anything other than Fox News? Secretary Powell admitted two days ago that the most dramatic piece of evidence he presented to the UN justifying the war in Iraq was based on “flawed intelligence”. The Los Angeles Times (the paper that won 5 Pulitzer Prizes yesterday)reported that the “eyewitness” Secretary Powell cited before the UN had never been interviewed by US intelligence, in fact they didn’t even know the source’s name. VP Cheney firmly denied that he ever said Iraq was an “immediate threat” to the US prior to the invasion,(a vital argument in justifying the rush to war) and then was forced to retract that denial when he was shown the tape. Ari Fleischer admitted in a press conference that the President’s reference in his State of the Union address to Iraq’s trying to obtain fissile material from Africa was based on a forged document. This same document was reviewed by the CIA 10 months before the president’s address and the president was told it was not credible. Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent to Africa to investigate the matter and returned to tell VP Cheney’s office that the docunment was an obvious forgery. The president deleted mention of the document in a speech in Ohio because the CIA told him it was unreliable. Secretary Powell refused to use the information in his address to the UN because in his words “it was not strong enough evidence.” And yet the president used the fake information to frighten the American people and justify his war. If you tell someone something you know to be untrue you are LYING! And this administration lies on a daily basis. All of the information noted above has been reported by the mainstream US and international press repeatedly. If you guys would do a little research on these issues rather than just blindly following Rush, Sean, Anne, and Mr. Murdoch you might actually learn something. But a desire to know the truth has never been a neo-conservative strong point has it?