September 14, 2004
Does the DNC want Kerry?
I find it hard to believe that the DNC actually wants Kerry to win the White House. They do not want to talk about why Kerry is the better candidate. Why he would make a better President.
Could it be that they really don’t want him to win?
Just about every time a Kerry supporter is being interviewed and is asked a direct question about Kerry and what he plans to do as President the answer has nothing to do with Kerry.
The majority of the campaign for Kerry centers around Bush bashing and Kerry being a war hero.
You would think that the DNC would be driving home why he would be better than Bush and not spending the majority of their time putting down the President.
I know ... Kerry would make a better President because he is a war hero. It seems to be the only reason they can come up with.
The 30 year old questions I want answered are:
Why did Kerry take a home movie camera with him to Vietnam? and ...
(This I don't know as factual. It just appears this way to me.)
Why did he get out of there as fast as he possibly could?
What is the DNC really up to?
Why do we have a political party trashing our sitting President with so much anger?
I wonder how this looks to the rest of the world.
It has got to be very encouraging to our enemies and those who just want to be able to say, 'See. The government of the U.S.A. is not so wonderful.'
Why do we have a political party trashing our sitting President with so much anger? I wonder how this looks to the rest of the world.
I had the same questions during that whole Monica Lewinski thing.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 10:38 PMDawn,
You ask:
“Why did he get out of there as fast as he possibly could?”
Think about it for 5 seconds. If you’re still not sure, ask, & perhaps someone else can explain to you why a person who has been shot at repeatedly, killed many, & been wounded himself might… oh honestly.
Hey, check out Rush. He thinks the DNC REALLY wants Hillary Clinton to be the presidential nominee. Oops. I mean, Vice-Presidential nominee. Oops. I mean… There’s no such thing as Global Warming, and Bush is a great leader!
That was not what I asked.
The Monica Lewinski ‘thing’ was something that I agree shouldn’t have happened. It was a waste of time and money but if you want to get right down to it … if President Clinton would have just looked everyone in the face and admitted to it to begin with it may not have turned into such a farce.
Please don’t try to compare perjury to any accusations made about President Bush being a liar. I am not saying Bush is or isn’t lying. There is a difference between being accused and perjuring yourself.
I don’t see the anger comparison between the Clinton issue and what is going on now.
Why don’t you go ahead and ask “Why do you hate America so much?”
I’m voting Kerry because he seems to me to be the more substantial of the two candidates. He’s got views that depend on facts to be expressed. He seems to be more thoughtful, better-mannered, less arrogant about the power he wields. You may practically deify him, but Bush is not all that good of a leader, not if you take a good look at where he’s lead us. He’s the guy in the care who won’t ask directions. Sure, he goes at full speed wherever he heads, but that just means we get to the wrong places faster, and farther off track in a shorter amount of time.
I want real leadership, Dawn, not the B-movie Hollywood version of it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 14, 2004 11:07 PMSee … there you go.
I asked for someone to tell me why Kerry is the best man for the job of President of The United States and what do I get … comments about Monica and “think about it 5 seconds”.
I did think about it.
He took a camera with him to document his being there and he got out as fast as he could because he had political plans. He couldn’t get himself killed. He wouldn’t be challenging Bush today if he had.
Even 35 years ago people knew that a military career would help them get into office.
He tried to be a ‘hero’ on both sides. Fighting with those on the front lines and then coming home and fighting with those against the war.
Now if anyone says anything negative about him they are questioning his patriotism.
That still doesn’t explain why every time a Democratic supporter gets interviewed they will not talk about what Kerry plans to do as President.
Dawn, if I answer your question about why the DNC spends so much time bashing Bush, will you tell me why the RNC spends ALL its time bashing Kerry?
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at September 14, 2004 11:12 PMJerome, when has the RNC bashed Kerry? When was the last time the leader of the RNC called Kerry a liar? When was the last time the Bush campaign called Kerry a deserter?
And before you respond with ‘SBVFT’ you can stop, O’Neill is no more a tool of the Right than Michael Moore is a tool of the left. Get over it, we’re talking about the actual DNC getting out and calling Bush a deserter and liar, while using more and more likely forged documents that some claim the DNC provided to make their case.
If you can’t see a difference…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2004 11:22 PMThe DNC homepage has one article that could possibly be seen as Bush bashing. The rest are actually substantive arguments, criticisms and policy positions. John Kerry’s campaign homepage doesn’t have anything that might qualify as Bush bashing.
I’ve heard a few things in some of his speeches that probably qualify as bashing, but it doesn’t appear to me as over the top. Kerry is the challenger. He has to attack Bush’s record. He hasn’t said anything as bad as saying voting for Kerry will cause a devastating terrorist attack.
I don’t think I need to go into how Kerry would be better. I think he’s doing okay at it. I’d like some more details and numbers but he’s done an adequate job of getting his ideas across.
I think the convention was overloaded with the Vietnam thing but it’s purpose is to show a familiarity with the realities of war. It’s not the best argument but it’s not offensive, as it’s portrayed by the right.
If I were to create an equally generalized view of the Bush campaign, I’d say they bash John Kerry at every opportunity, and even make up a few opportunities, because Bush has only two dubious “accomplishments” in his administration: Iraq and Afghanistan. And I just don’t have the strength tonight to go on again about those two “accomplishments.”
No Child Left Behind is useless and unworkable legislation. And the Medicare prescription drug benefits are a farce. Of course he won’t claim credit for the largest deficits in the history of the world. Rather, he will say, the tax cuts have helped grow the economy. Thousands of low paying temp jobs without benefits are being created every day! And just think if we counted the eBay economy! Nevermind that he promised to create 7 million new jobs and ends up losing a million or so.
He has no real accomplishments so he must attack Kerry almost exclusively. The rest of his time is pent promising the same things he promised in 2000.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 11:22 PMI do not represent the Democratic party. The Monica thing was an observation. It was quick and dirty. You’re right, though, the completely unfounded and counterproductive vitriol that the Repubs spewed on Clinton over his peccadillos is nothing like Kerry’s bashing of Bush.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2004 11:29 PMJoseph…
I didn’t hear Bush say that about a terrorist attack.
Cheney said something like that.
Now if Cheney has to stop then Edwards has to stop.
Both sides have people saying things that are being said to have come from the candidates.
They all need to stop and get down to the real issues.
I was not defending the RNC.
I was wondering why the DNC supporters do not tell us why Kerry is the best man for the job.
I also never said that Kerry wouldn’t be better. I said I don’t hear why he would be better from the DNC. Just finding fault in the current administration does not make Kerry or anyone else qualified.
Posted by: Dawn at September 14, 2004 11:41 PMLeaving aside the forged documents and the question of whether or not they came from the DNC, how can Democrats now defend the DNC’s explicit and deliberate attack against Bush’s National Guard service in their latest ad?
Seems to me that when McCain said such attacks should be off limits, Democrats said “Hallelujah” and “Amen, brother!” in unison. Hypocricy, thy name is Terry McCaullife.
Posted by: Martin at September 15, 2004 12:00 AMJoseph:
You defended the Democrats by saying that the DNC web pages dont bash bush, and that Kerry has not been over the top in bashing Bush.
But how do you respond to a scion of the Dem party saying “This (war) was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.” Teddy Kennedy
Do you consider calling the president a liar and a traitor, in effect, a bashing?
How about the chairman of the DNC saying, “There are other issues that you can say — AWOL, just didn’t show up for duty…” Terry McAuliffe
Would you consider that accusing a President of being AWOL, a charge that has been bandied about but never proven to be bashing?
These are members of the Democratic leadership saying these things publicly. That they are not highlighted on the DNC websites is of little relevance—the comments have been made publicly.
Joseph, I dont think you can seriously or honestly say that the Democratic party has not bashed or attacked Bush.
Posted by: joebaogodonuts at September 15, 2004 12:02 AMRhinehold, I can only conclude that you’ve never visited www.rnc.org. That you haven’t enjoyed the hilarious “Kerry vs. Kerry,” which consists of dozens of out-of-context quotes and misleading statements about Kerry’s record.
Or Kerry’s corner, an entire page (with lots of links) dedicated to bashing Kerry, and this (apparently non-bashing) introduction on the home page:
Who Is John Kerry? A Massachusetts liberal out of touch with America. A flip flopper who wants to raise taxes, is weak on national security, weak on intelligence and weak on homeland security. For a complete look at Kerry’s record visit the Kerry Corner.
Did you watch the expertly edited video that makes it appear as if Kerry says he’s the anti-war candidate (cutting out the rest of his response)? According to the home page— where there are three flashing televisions offering the opportunity to watch this masterpiece— 7 million people have seen this distortion of Kerry’s position on Iraq.
Did you see Gillespie’s speech at the convention? A relatively few words about his candidate amid a raft of attacks on John Kerry.
I can’t believe you actually believe what you wrote. They call John Kerry a liar on a daily basis. They lie about his record every day. They’ve questioned his purple hearts— did you get your purple heart band-aid at the Republican National Convention?
The RNC’s greatest strength is its ability to tear down its opponents. It’s doing a masterful job of misrepresenting John Kerry and painting him in the image that they want people to see. The fact that it requires a series of distortions about Kerry and his record is irrelevant— this is a presidential election and they’re out to win.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at September 15, 2004 12:08 AMCan we call a truce on this? Both the DNC and RNC have spent a lot of energy attacking their opponents. That’s a big part of their job. The National Committees are there to be the bullies while leaving the candidates looking clean, and both do it well.
Of course, both also spend energy building up their candidates; that’s the other part of their jobs.
We could go in this vicious cycle of “Your guys are dirty - look at this!” “No, your guys are dirtier - look at this!” forever, but we’re not going to convince anyone of anything.
Of course, I think the RNC’s dirtier, but that’s just my bias, and I’ll never convince a Republican of it, and I don’t hope to.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 15, 2004 12:17 AMJerome, you just did what I asked you not to. The RNC has never questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam. The Bush campaign has never questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam.
The RNC is not calling Kerry a liar. The Bush campaign is not calling Kerry a deserter.
The RNC and the Bush Campaign ARE pointing out what they see as reasons not to vote for Kerry based on what HE said and what HE did as senator.
Are some of the quotes taken out of context? Yes, they are. Are Bush’s quotes and record taken out of context by the Kerry campaign? Yes, they are. You can see both of those sides at www.factcheck.org, they both do it all day long, it’s politics.
But, it has been a looong time since a presidential campaign or the Committee chairman has called their opponent at LIAR, DESERTER and EVIL.
Those are the things that Kerry’s side is saying now. It’s disgusting and it will backfire. Those sitting on the fence understand that you take bits of your opponent’s record and quotes and ‘edit it up’ to make him appear weak on issues you are strong on. That’s what is done. They are NOT happy about the name calling and ‘Schoolyard Politics’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 15, 2004 12:24 AMSo let me get this straight, Rhinehold. It’s okay to mislead people about a candidate’s record, to attack his character, to question the severity of his injuries while fighting in combat, and to suggest that voting for him for president would guarantee another major terorrist attack in the US? That’s okay?
But suggesting that Bush was AWOL from the Guard during Vietnam is “name-calling and schoolyard politics”? Is that right?
Here are a couple of examples of the RNC’s treatment of John Kerry:
Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot on John Kerry:
“There is a temperament, there is a nature, there is an essence to his character and his capacity as a leader that is defective and is prone toward political opportunism,” Racicot said, “because more than anything, there is this almost insatiable desire to achieve higher office at the expense of focusing upon the best interests of this nation.”
In honor of St. Patrick’s Day, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie released the following limerick in tribute to Democratic nominee John Kerry:
There once was a man from Nantucket, Whose misstatements could fill up a bucket. Oft the truth he has bent, Like his “Irish descent.” Of his record he says, “I’ll just duck it.”
The GOP and the Bush/Cheney campaign have been ever so careful to avoid publicly attacking John Kerry’s actual service in Vietnam, while giving a subtle wink and nod of approval to those who are attacking Kerry’s service. Then they’ve spent their time and money attacking him on everything else.
As far as doing what you asked me not to, that isn’t true. You asked me not to bring up the Swiftboat Veterans or other fringe groups…which I didn’t (until this post, but only in passing). Everything I cited was from the GOP or the Bush/Cheney campaign. And I find it amusing that you’re pinning much of your argument about the Democrats’ attacks on allegedly forged documents that were possibly provided by the DNC.
For the record, I’m not suggesting that leaders of the Democratic Party have not attacked Bush. They have. Just as leaders of the GOP have relentlessly attacked John Kerry. And no, I can’t see a difference; there is none.
Dawn,
I feel that most democrats see Kerry as a best case candidate instead of their leader. Due to the fact that Bush has taken every idea the democrats have had over the last 2-3 years and turned them into his own may be a good reason why they are holding their cards close to their heart.
Second; Kerry spent two tours of Vietnam. the first tour was on a ship off shore and the second tour was on the swift boats. As far as taken a movie camera from home I can not confrim. Yet, the solders of those days are just like the ones today. A camera is a personal item in which you are allowed to own.
The DNC knows Bush can not stand on his record for most of us will laugh at him if he does. Additionally, Kerry and Edwards are forcing the RNC to play cleanball which Bush and Cheney has not done.
You ask; Why do we have a political party trashing our sitting President with so much anger?
I wonder how this looks to the rest of the world.
It has got to be very encouraging to our enemies and those who just want to be able to say, ‘See. The government of the U.S.A. is not so wonderful.’
The Dems and Reps having been doing this for year. Don’t you remember the 2000 election? The republicans was bashing Clinton and he wasn’t even running in the race. As far as other countries in the world wondering about us, I suppose they all think that we are nuts.
Why do we have a political party trashing our sitting President with so much anger?Lousy economy, spiraling-out-of-control disaster in Iraq, the first President since Hoover to have a net job loss during his tenure, Reichsführer Ashcroft, letting Osama get away. Take your pick.
Posted by: Erik Kosberg at September 15, 2004 01:14 AM
Well, most people seem to think that any negative attack against their candidate is unfair while also believing that attacks against candidates they oppose are righteous and justifed. Fine.
But looking past this basic hypocricy, which we’re all probably guilty of on some level, it seems pretty clear that Republicans have at least been making effective negataive points which connect to the concerns of voters and which have been succesfull in moving the poll numbers. I’m not talking about what’s “right” now, just what’s effective.
The DNC looks like it’s just flailing around desparetely, launching badly-calculated attacks about Bush’s Guard service which, even if true, just are not going to resonate with very many voters. For the life of me, I don’t understand it.
It seems like a well-thought out negative attack might do some real damage, and even I can think of things Bush might be attacked more effectively on.
But the DNC seems more intent on just lashing out with blind fury—poorly executed attacks which are
at least as likely to blow up in their faces as hurt Bush. I’m glad they’re doing it, but can’t for a second understand what they think they’re accomplishing.
Dawn said “It has got to be very encouraging to our enemies and those who just want to be able to say, ‘See. The government of the U.S.A. is not so wonderful.’
Do you mean in addition to all the reasons the Bush administration has given the people’s of the world to say that? .
Posted by: David R Remer at September 15, 2004 01:42 AM> He took a camera with him to document
> his being there
Lots of soldiers did, especially officers. My grandfather took tons of pictures in the South Pacific during WWII and he even shot 8mm films in Korea. You’re imagining a sophisticated conniving plot where, in fact, there is simply a normal everyday American story.
> Why did he get out of there as fast
> as he possibly could?
I refer you to Don’s “5 seconds” comment, because clearly you have not yet spent quite that long thinking about the question as to why a soldier in Vietnam might actually choose to be transferred out of the combat zone when given the chance. Please, I beg of you, think about it: If you were in Vietnam, and you had been shot at, and you had killed people, and you had seen your friends and colleagues gruesomely wounded and killed, and you yourself had been wounded in combat - wouldn’t you choose to leave? Your rhetorical question and the insinuation behind it is frankly quite shocking in its thorough lack of empathy for what soldiers fighting wars go through.
I also can’t help but note that while the first half of your post is all about how bad it is that Kerry bashes Bush all the time, the second half of your post is entirely composed of scurrilous insinuations and attacks on John Kerry!
You built a pretty glass house and then immediately started throwing stones. Crash!
The capers you allude to in the second half of your post honestly sound more like the plot for a madcap episide of Gomer Pyle or a sinister episode of the X-Files than like rational political commentary.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 01:49 AMMartin, the same unanalytical and uncritical acceptance of the questioning of Kerry’s service record that caused swing voters to move in the polls toward Bush, will not suddenly become educated because the Democratic supporters begin a similar campaign.
A new Monitor/TIPP poll finds Mr. Bush and Sen. John Kerry currently tied among likely voters nationwide, with each receiving 47 percent of the vote in a two-man race, and each receiving 46 percent when independent candidate Ralph Nader is added to the ballot. The poll of 674 likely voters was conducted Sept. 7-12, and has a margin of error of 4 percent.Christian Science Monitor
What goes around can easily come around… watch out! :-D
BTW, I found almost all your remarks regading this subject very objective so you left me almost nothing to debate with. So, I thought I would throw the link above into the soup. Enjoy!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 02:39 AMJoseph,
Of course he won’t claim credit for the largest deficits in the history of the world.
This one is always my favorite. Just throw out some half truth and expect people to pick it up like a shiny new penny! Mainly because it is never compared to the GNP. That’s like saying mortgages are the highest in history! Big deal! Funny thing about mortgages and the direct relationship to the cost of housing.
Lawnboy,
Of course, I think the RNC’s dirtier, but that’s just my bias, and I’ll never convince a Republican of it, and I don’t hope to.
Maybe you didn’t hear Howard Dean insinuate that the President concocted the attacks on 9/11 or perhaps the blabbering of Ted Kennedy when he said “he told lie after lie after lie after lie after lie…. Forgot that one? How about Terry McAuliff when he called the President a deserter. Oh and then there is Al Gore unplugged with his ‘He betrayed this country’ speech. Of course we can conveniently forget about Tom Harkin calling Cheney and Bush chicken hawks and cowards. He criticizes Cheney for getting deferments and never mentions the 5 deferments that Kerry applied for. Of course there were months of Democrats debating each other by scoring points on who was the best at demonizing a sitting President. Howard Dean almost won that one, but got way off track with his staunch anti-war views and belittling of the President.
When nearly $65 million are spent on negative ads and a movie that makes Michael Moore $200 million dollars can not even compare to being dirty. Please don’t forget all the Bush bashing books, which are in fashion these days. It goes on and on and all it does is galvanize Republicans. And now we are subjected to that outstanding journalist Kitty Kelley that proclaims all the Bushes to be cocaine users, alcoholics, schizophrenics and everything else that is dark and deceitful.
When Republicans state someone’s record this is called attacking someone’s patriotism! Spin, pure spin.
Lawnboy, I realize you are a partisan. But please, show me one prominent Republican that has attacked Kerry at a personal level by calling him a traitor, a deserter, a liar, a coward or a betrayer. Just name one please. I really would like to know who they are!
Even Bush himself has praised Kerry’s service, so did Cheney, so did McCain. Has Kerry done the same where Bush is concerned? Hardly! So where exactly is this vitriol you say comes from the Republicans? I fail to see it but you seem to have found it.
Joseph
He hasn’t said anything as bad as saying voting for Kerry will cause a devastating terrorist attack.
If I were to create an equally generalized view of the Bush campaign, I’d say they bash John Kerry at every opportunity, and even make up a few opportunities,
See note to Lawnboy!
Erik
Lousy economy, spiraling-out-of-control disaster in Iraq, the first President since Hoover to have a net job loss during his tenure, Reichsführer Ashcroft, letting Osama get away. Take your pick.
An economy and recession he inherited along with a stock market crash the prior year. Corporate scandals, an attack on our soils by head in the sand Clinton and Albright allowing Osama to go unchecked for 8 years. Had the inspectors leave Iraq so he could lob a few bombs and then he could go right back to his devious ways.
Clinton rode the coattails of an economy he inherited and left a disaster for his successor. He did nothing at all to stave off a recession, but he did pardon all his crooked friends rather than bomb the daylights out of Afghanistan in his last days in office. During the 90s, 20 million jobs were created due to a booming Internet and entreprenurialship that Clinton inherited. So a net loss of 1 million jobs is hardly anything when you look at the 1.7 million that have been created under extraordinary circumstances the past 12 months. But I guess you have forgotten that we were attacked. How convenient is that?
That along with the Peace Dividend and Clinton and Albright’s acute visionary abilities that could not see much further than Mr. McGoo which led to the total dismantling of our military when we need them now more than ever!
Unbelievable!
Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 05:32 AMDawn, the general idea of your article seemed to be the DNC v Bush. I extrapolated this into DNC/Kerry campaign v RNC/Bush campaign and was willing to play fast and loose with the comparison. I thought it fair enough. I think both candidates spend time on the issues, it just doesn’t get media attention because they are also bandying about this crap from 30 years ago.
Yes, joebagodonuts, I did misrepresent the issue by pointing to the DNC homepage. Is that wrong? ;) Honestly, I don’t watch too much TV and I don’t get exposed to most of what goes on. But I knew someone would come in with the goods, so I figured I’d leave it at that and see what comes up.
That Kennedy quote you cited seems fine. Calling the war a fraud is not necessarily saying Bush is a liar and a traitor. The “made in Texas” crack is a funny caricature, unless he has proof, I don’t know. Kinda like when the Bush camp characterizes Kerry as “a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal whose out of touch with America.”
I don’t like Terry McAuliffe and I wish he would shut up. I don’t like the attacks on Bush’s National Guard duty and I wish the Democrats would come up with something better (like anything from the last four years). Though I must admit, I like Stephen’s take on it: that it’s about George’s character now. What he has said, and how he has tried to portray himself on this issue. That seems fair, especially after he gave that speech to the National Guard.
I must admit, Rhinehold, I’ve never heard anyone on the DNC side call Bush evil. Cite? I wouldn’t put it past them, I’m just saying, I haven’t heard it.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 07:34 AMMAW, where to begin. Al Gore saying Bush betrayed the country is valid if you consider the whole message. Kennedy saying Bush told lie after lie after lie is valid if you consider the whole message. I know the right likes to view the invasion of Iraq as some saintly mandate of an alien influence from beyond the stars but I feel like Bush lied to me, especially when he told me he was going to spend my tax dollars on it whether I liked it or not. You see, criticism is not bashing. Calling Bush a liar is a criticism of his hype leading up to the war with Iraq. It might seem harsh, but Bush wasn’t very gentle about it either.
Your characterization of the Dem primaries is funny but holds no water. And I thought Dean lost because of that cooky speech where he screamed.
You say Kerry is spending 65m on negative ads but don’t mention how much Bush is spending (I also think you’re exaggerating. Source?). Does that qualify as a half-truth? And those books you mention can’t be viewed as bashing. Do you think these people just filled their books with vitriol? I’m not saying the books aren’t biased but I think calling them bashing is disingenuous. Bushies are free to write their books supporting their candidate or attacking Kerry if they like.
And it’s really funny when the right says in defense of Bush that presidents don’t have that much influence on the economy but then go about apologizing for Bush’s economy by blaming it on Clinton. That and using 911 as an excuse for, well, everything.
It’s also interesting that they blame Clinton for his minor attacks against Saddam and al Qaeda but fail to mention Republican resistance and criticism of it. Or that whole Monica Lewinski thing.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 07:53 AMMAW,
I think my comment from 12:17 AM completely answers your question.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 15, 2004 08:53 AMDavid. Please. You can do better than .. “Do you mean in addition to all the reasons the Bush administration has given the people’s of the world to say that? .”
I am talking about being better. One side or the other can not claim to be better and trash the other side at the same time.
Nothing like choosing a President based on ‘the lesser of two evils’. If that’s the best either party has to offer then we are all in trouble.
Bush has had and probably caused problems. Does anybody really think there is a perfect President or that there ever will be ?
I can’t imagine being the President.
Everyone wants something done their way and if it isn’t the bashing begins. Any President we have has got to be proficient in the art of compromise.
The people that come with their issues have to be ready to compromise.
Our country is being overrun by people who want things ‘my way or no way’.
Both parties are guilty of driving wedges and dividing the American people.
Posted by: Dawn at September 15, 2004 09:17 AMThe majority of the campaign for Kerry centers around Bush bashing and Kerry being a war hero.
Dawn, it seems like every day I read in the paper that Kerry’s out campaigning somewhere talking about the economy, energy, the environment, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, terrorism, education, health care, etc.
Let’s see… On Monday Kerry was talking about crime prevention in Washington DC. Yesterday it was medicare in Milwaukee.
From the number of times I’ve seen Dawn’s claim repeated by Republicans, it seems like they either don’t know how to read, or they just don’t bother.
Welcome to WatchBlog, BTW. :)
American Pundit,
Thanks for the welcome.
Kerry can run around saying whatever he wants. It doesn’t make the front page news where I live. Bush doesn’t make the front page. (It’s not being able to read that is the problem.)
I don’t live in a battleground state. They don’t come here. They (both parties) don’t bother to win a vote from someone they assume is voting for the other side anyway.
I was talking about the people that ‘represent’ Kerry. I do not hear from them what Kerry plans to do and how he plans to do it. How he plans to do something is more important to me than what it is. Anybody can say they will fix something. Anybody can say the other guy is messing things up.
“When I am President I will fix the problem with Social Security” just doesn’t cut it for me. They all do that. How many times has a wantabe President promised to fix S.S. ?
The President can not fix things alone. Just like they don’t mess things up on their own.
Presidents fix problems and make problems with the help of both parties.
I know … the president makes the ultimate decision. Decisions based on information given to them by people representing both sides. The decision ultimately lies in the Presidents hands but reasons why decisions were made also have to be considered.
Posted by: Dawn at September 15, 2004 09:53 AMJason, you see nothing wrong with calling a sitting president or the opponent he is running against, a liar, deserter, evil, etc? It’s just criticism?
I think you’re just making the point for us, Jason. If you want to view the democratic party with blinders on, that’s your decision. But it’s schoolyard politics to restort to namecalling.
Do I think it’s right to resort to half-truths and mischaracterisations? Of course not! That’s why I check any ‘fact’ that either side gives before accepting it. But are YOU trying to say that there isn’t a line that gets crossed when you start resorting to name calling like ‘evil’ and ‘liar’?
Those words are used because they represent how they FEEL about Bush, just as you did (I feel that he lied to me), but never back it up with the actual lie or proof that he is evil.
And Stephen, I know you are keen to say that the Democratic campaign is focusing on ‘the issues’ while the republicans aren’t, but that’s just not accurate. Sure, Kerry is giving speeches about those issues, so is Bush. But it’s what the campaigns are spending TV ad money on, what the DNC chairman is saying, etc. *1* single name-calling attack will fill the news media for days and they know it. So they do it.
And yes, the RNC and republicans are running on a campaign of fear and trying to label their opponent as weak on defense and a flip-flopper, but as I pointed out before, there is a line being crossed here that will resonate with voters if it doesn’t stop soon.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 15, 2004 10:06 AMJason, you see nothing wrong with calling a sitting president or the opponent he is running against, a liar, deserter, evil, etc? It’s just criticism?
If one believes it to be true, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be brought up.
Bush called Saddam evil, when he was a sitting president. You know what? It was accurate.
Posted by: ceejayoz at September 15, 2004 10:16 AMReally? If one believes it to be true? Why the outcry against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Why the demand that Bush denounce their ads (which he did but not the way that they wanted apparently because they still bring it up)? How can you be against it when it hurts you and be for it when it helps you? That’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself.
As for ‘Bush called Saddam evil’… 1st, that’s a laughable argument and 2nd, at least he provided evidence to the fact, not just argued out of emotion.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 15, 2004 10:24 AMI guess I’m Jason.
I could give plenty of reasons for why I thought GW lied to me, I just don’t have time. Give me a while or check out my blog entry on it. I thought most of the reasons were well known.
Also, when Kerry is saying Bush is a liar, that’s not the whole message. He has backed it up with why he thinks Bush lied.
And I still don’t believe anyone in the DNC/Kerry camp has called Bush evil. Do you have a reference?
I don’t have blinders on regarding the Dems. I’m not saying they aren’t engaging in any questionable tactics. I just think it is on par with the Repubs and it is par for the course.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 10:45 AMEnough with the bickering. What does this all really come down to?
The Democratic Part has jettisoned all moderate to conservative voices from its party. Sam Nunn is gone. Joe Lieberman got 5% of the primary vote. Zel Miller, who pointed all of this in his book (without abandoning his party), is now the modern Judas. Democrat voters holding conservative social and economic followed Reagan to the Republicans and they won’t come back no matter how foul the GOP smells. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out was the refrain from the progressives.
The Clinton “recipe”, adopted by the DNC, was to run “New Democrats” in national elections. Remember those? They were supposed to be center-center left candidates who were appealing to the broad electorate while sympathizing with progressive views. The problem is that instead of finding candidates who actually held these positions they went to the Holiday Inn Express and got Senators to pretend to hold these positions. Al Gore and John Kerry can’t help being who they are; progressive liberals.
The masquerade is over for the Democrats. They must decide if they are going be the big tent party they once were or if they will complete the transformation to the progressive liberal side. I actually hope they do go progressive, because I think that will finally open the door a new majority party in this country that would not be tied to the failed, mismatched coalitions of the past.
Until then they are stuck with a bad candidate and in all likelihood a failed campaign. Kerry is literally stuck in the middle of his own party’s internal struggle, and the infighting in his campaign shows there is really no way out.
And until then I’m sure we will continue to bicker about, in the grand scheme of things, absolutely nothing.
Posted by: George at September 15, 2004 11:00 AMJoseph,
Though I must admit, I like Stephen’s take on it: that it’s about George’s character now. What he has said, and how he has tried to portray himself on this issue.
President Bush has admitted he was a screw up. So what does bringing up his National Guard Duty have to do with his character again? He has said “When I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible”. I really doubt that Bushism got past you. He has said repeatedly that he is not the same man he was 30 years ago while at the same time Kerry continues to draw from 30 years ago to represent who and what he is today. Then when it is questioned he cries foul! Incredible!
I must admit, Rhinehold, I’ve never heard anyone on the DNC side call Bush evil. Cite? I wouldn’t put it past them, I’m just saying, I haven’t heard it.
They must have missed evil. It got lost in traitor, deserter, liar, AWOL, chicken hawk, coward, planner of 9/11. Well then, all is forgiven. No mention of evil, yesiree! Makes it all OK when you look at it that way!
Joseph, where do I begin. You missed the obvious point of my litany of name-calling. It was directed to those that claim Republicans are worse than Democrats in the name calling arena. And I have asked on several threads for one of you guys to cite me where this is being done by Republicans. Just one! And as of yet, I have not seen or heard any such demonization. Only attacks on record which is interpreted as name-calling. Attacks on records is still allowed under McCain-Feingold or is it?
Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 11:52 AMI once heard on some radio talk show that the Communist Party could find no footing in the US. Instead of abandoning their unsucessful ideals, they have buried themselves in the Democratic Party and sadly have taken it so far left that it is hardly recognizable any longer.
That once proud party of JFK, the party of Zel Miller, Joe Lieberman and the one that Clinton tried to bring back a little more center is now gone. This is the tragedy of the political process in this country.
And yes, Republicans should get back to their ideals of being fiscally responsible, especially President Bush. I give no quarter to my own party here either.
:Lawnboy,
I think my comment from 12:17 AM completely answers your question.
Your comment from 12:17 initiated my question, it certainly did not answer my question.
Joseph,
You say Kerry is spending 65m on negative ads but don’t mention how much Bush is spending (I also think you’re exaggerating. Source?).
I never said Kerry was spending 65M on negative ads. I was referring to 527 Committee Activity.
They must have missed evil. It got lost in traitor, deserter, liar, AWOL, chicken hawk, coward, planner of 9/11. Well then, all is forgiven. No mention of evil, yesiree! Makes it all OK when you look at it that way!
When did I say that? I am genuinely interested in whatever source Rhinehold might have regarding this. I’m trying to be fair. Sheesh.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 12:17 PM> The Democratic Part has jettisoned all
> moderate to conservative voices from its party.
Even if this were true, do you wonder how we Democrats still manage to get nearly half of America’s voters to vote for our candidates? Maybe the message that you perceive to be narrowly liberal is one that appeals to more Americans than you think.
By your logic, that would mean that nearly half of America’s voters are “progressive liberals”. I wouldn’t argue with that. Although there are almost as many conservatives in this country, and although most people wouldn’t want to use the word “liberal” to describe themselves, voters so largely agree with most liberal policies. If Kerry had any regular-guy charisma at all, Bush would lose in a landslide.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 12:34 PMDawn: There you go, not a single liberal can actually tell you how kerry would be better, except that he supports their views. They have no proof to support any of their views either.
Lousy economy- depends which numbers you look at and how you look at them. Personally, I’m doing a hell of a lot better than in the last 12 years.
and 9-11 didn’t happen and didn’t put a strain on the economy either.
Osama- Please. It seems that clinton had a chance to get him after the USS Cole attack. But that is different.
Bush’s time in service- So, 12 years ago, liberals said it was wrong to criticize clinton for dodging the draft but now it’s ok to say it about Bush. And recently, kerry used his status to leave Nam. But when Bush uses his status to not go to Nam, that is wrong.
Bush not a good leader- Yeah, and 9-11 didn’t happen, Bush did nothing to try and pull the country together, the military isn’t overwhelmly pro-Bush and so far he has killed thousands of innocent people. If kerry is in office when the next attack happens, he will do the same thing. The military won’t respect kerry, but they will support him.
All the party hate is the Republicans fault- I guess if you try to make someone who takes advantage of his position, lies, rapes and obstructs justice, accountable for his actions, then you are hateful.
Swift Boat Vets backed by Bush- Maybe. But kerry has moveon, hollywood elitist and countless others also. Whats the diff?
Some of the headlines above were lies, heresay and opinions. Some are true. But they all did and still do the same thing by keeping the voters confused about the reality of what is really going on.
Bush hasn’t done half the things the liberals claim and he isn’t half as great as the neocons claim. But why the hate.
I agree with you Dawn. Both sides can have their views, but why hate someone for having their own views?
Like you Dawn, I am still waiting for some info. on what exactly kerry has done or will do, to make this a better country!
Posted by: Tim at September 15, 2004 12:38 PMYour comment from 12:17 initiated my question, it certainly did not answer my question.
Then you didn’t read the beginning of the comment.
Can we call a truce on this? Both the DNC and RNC have spent a lot of energy attacking their opponents. That’s a big part of their job. The National Committees are there to be the bullies while leaving the candidates looking clean, and both do it well.Of course, both also spend energy building up their candidates; that’s the other part of their jobs.
We could go in this vicious cycle of “Your guys are dirty - look at this!” “No, your guys are dirtier - look at this!” forever, but we’re not going to convince anyone of anything.
I’m not going to be baited into this useless argument.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 15, 2004 12:57 PM> I once heard on some radio talk show that the
> Communist Party could find no footing in the
> US. Instead of abandoning their unsucessful
> ideals, they have buried themselves in the
> Democratic Party
You are listening to some pretty insane talk radio, MAW. This whole thread is about name calling, right? You’re calling us Communists? What is this, 1955?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 01:22 PMActually CF, my post is about the power struggle within the Democratic Party. To have a power struggle you need more than one view; the Democratic Party is not and has never been 100% progressive.
If I were to guess, and I am no expert, I’d say about 30% of this country would not only claim to be but actually are progressive liberals. Of that number, probably 80% of them (who vote) vote Democratic.
The failed coalition that I spoke of was that of progressives plus labor (working people and unions), minorities, and lawyers. Those other groups included socially conservative people who did not necessarily support the progressive views, but needed the coalition to get people elected. Remember even Reagan was a Democrat.
Posted by: George at September 15, 2004 01:43 PMDawn, your initial question is a good one: Does the DNC really want Kerry?
I’m not a conspiracy fan (vast right-wing or otherwise) but I’ve been wondering exactly the same thing.
Surely any large organization with virtually unlimited amounts of money and talent could mount a better campaign than the DNC has done thus far. Can they really want a victory this year or would they prefer to start fresh four years from now?
My first clue was when they kept Terry McAuliffe as leader of the party. He’s a partisan’s partisan, which is certainly what they would want in that position, but he’s always been known for his vicious personal attacks on the opposition. That approach hurt Al Gore in 2000 and it’s presently hurting John Kerry.
We must assume that if McAuliffe didn’t dream up Kerry’s disastrous campaign strategy, then he at least put his stamp of approval on it. One example was his providing a high visibility seat for Michael Moore at the RNC convention. Yeah, I know he was there as a USA Today ‘correspondent’ but does anyone seriously think old Terry didn’t know about it well in advance? Is he really so dense that he couldn’t foresee that it would make his party look like a bunch of uninvited guests at a wedding reception?
Now it looks like things just aren’t going quite badly enough for McAuliffe so he’s rolling out old Teddy Kennedy to join the fight. Is it possible that this political genius actually thought to himself that the best way to appeal to those voters who can’t bring themselves to support a Massachusetts liberal is to bring in yet another Massachusetts liberal? Apparently so.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to wonder if they really want a victory this year.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 15, 2004 01:44 PM> One example was his providing a high
> visibility seat for Michael Moore at
> the RNC convention.
I think you meant to write “DNC”, but your slip up is apt: Moore had a pretty high profile seat at the Republican convention, too.
> I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to
> wonder if they really want a victory this year.
It’s beyond unreasonable. We want Kerry to win more than anything in the world. Only the most vehement supporter of one of Kerry’s rivals would dare to risk four more years of Bush in excahnge for having their candidate have an open slate in 2008. We want to win not because winning feels good, but because we actually think a Democrat in the White House is better for America.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 02:14 PMReally? If one believes it to be true? Why the outcry against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Why the demand that Bush denounce their ads (which he did but not the way that they wanted apparently because they still bring it up)? How can you be against it when it hurts you and be for it when it helps you? That’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself.
The Swift Boat Vets were proven wrong. Bush (or his Administration, more generally), on the other hand, can be called a liar, and there’s evidence to support that. Some people would consider his position on gay marriage, abortion, etc. to be “evil”, and to them, he is.
There you go, not a single liberal can actually tell you how kerry would be better, except that he supports their views.
Kerry is willing to consider changing his mind when presented with new evidence, instead of stubbornly “staying the course” when presented with conflicting evidence. There you go.
Kerry has more experience in government than Bush.
Kerry is better respected than Bush by the leaders and populace of much of the Western World.
Kerry has served in and experienced warfare, giving him a perspective Bush doesn’t posess.
Now, can we stop saying liberals can’t give reasons why Kerry is better?
Posted by: ceejayoz at September 15, 2004 02:15 PMThis article is just rhetorical intimidation. It’s a bunch of partisan observations that carp about how Kerry’s campaign is being run, trying to convince everybody that the Democrats are not really serious about taking on Bushand and that by extention, Kerry is not a serious candidate for president.
It’s wonderful to have such people second guess us from ignorance. One minute you’re haranguing us for the fanaticism of our attacks on the president, then you’re asking whether we’re all that committed to bringing him down! Bwahahahahaaha! I mean, this is how silly things are getting!
We want victory. We’re on the stump campaigning for it every day. If you want to bubble yourself off from that and underestimate our resolve, go ahead. Denial will make our job easier.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2004 02:23 PMCJ:
- What evidence has surfaced, which should have made Bush pull out of Iraq or halt the war on terror?
- Kerry does have more govt. experience than Bush. clinton had less than Dole. Big deal
- Which leaders have come out and said they do not support Bush, but will support Kerry on everything? Links? Facts? Truth? please
- Ex. warfare? Yeah, for 4 months, he honorably served his country. Clinton dodged the draft but liberals still loved him. Why should this matter.
No, we can’t stop saying liberals can’t give reasons why kerry is better. You have only stated your personal opinions on why you love kerry and hate Bush. Your party tells you what to think and you think it.
I’m an independent. I don’t want to vote for Bush but I have to I guess. I cannot find one thing, that is not opinions, stories or conjecture, which leads me to believe kerry would be better.
I think you meant to write “DNC”, but your slip up is apt: Moore had a pretty high profile seat at the Republican convention, too. Posted by Christopher Fahey at September 15, 2004 02:14 PM
Actually it was just poor phrasing on my part.
Moore was honored by the Democrats just as Limbaugh was once honored by the Republicans — a bit of ‘rubbing their face in it’ approach that I don’t think is politically smart for either side.
Moore was sent to the Republican convention by USA Today, but I think it’s probably safe to assume that the head of the DNC knew about it beforehand. Had I been sitting in his chair, I think I would have called USA Today and asked them to reconsider that decision.
From what I’ve seen, I don’t think that McAuliffe is doing you guys any favors. Whether any of it is intentional is, of course, debatable.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 15, 2004 02:40 PMceejayoz:
“The Swift Boat Vets were proven wrong.”
Wow, so Kerry really WAS in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968?
Or perhaps he was near Cambodia, or in the vicinity of the border of Cambodia, or within 100 miles of the border on or around the general Christmas season during the late 1960’s?
Stephen and Chris: Democrats in general want Kerry to win, but I wonder about the Clinton connection. If Kerry wins, Hillary is done for 8 years, and most likely 12. If he loses, she gets up to the plate in 4 years. Its not beyond the realm of possibility that there are those within the powerful of the Dem party that dont want Kerry to win. But its really just idle speculation.
What is NOT speculation is that Kerry is running a terrible terrible campaign. He might be able to turn it around, but as of this point, it has been managed terribly. And proof of that is that Kerry himself has brought in new handlers to run the campaign (I know he characterizes this as just adding new voices to the choir, but the reality is that Mary Beth Cahill, Steph Cutter, and Bob Shrum are not in control anymore).
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 15, 2004 02:42 PMThere you go, not a single liberal can actually tell you how kerry would be better
Is this a quiz of Kerry’s stated positions? I didn’t know.
Here are the things I like about Kerry. Kerry is for internationalizing the effort in Iraq. Kerry wants to encourage companies to stop hemorrhaging jobs overseas. Kerry wants to be a little more fiscally responsible than Bush. Kerry supports stem cell research. Kerry wants to invest in alternative energies. Kerry wants to have innovation be a driving force in the American economy again. Kerry doesn’t appear to be beholden to the oil and coal industries.
I can talk about more but no time right now. I agree with Stephen, though:
This article is just rhetorical intimidation.
Which is why I said Kerry is doing a fine job getting his ideas across. But since you guys keep pressing the issue…
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 03:03 PMChris,
You are listening to some pretty insane talk radio, MAW. This whole thread is about name calling, right? You’re calling us Communists? What is this, 1955?
No, I am telling you that something is stealing your party and you need to wake up! I believe I heard this comment on a LA based radio talk show. It may have been a caller on the Tammy Bruce show. Tammy Bruce remember her? A Democrat and a former President of NOW and a lesbian I might add, who is a solid Bush supporter.
You guys need to wake up!
Great, MAW. That’s about as solid as the lefty accusation that the Nazis from WWII Germany came over here and joined the Republicans and started all those Christian grass roots campaigns.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 03:17 PMYes, Joseph you could be right about that. But Republicans woke up! Why don’t you guys?
Oh, and don’t forget the KKK. The left really likes to associate us with those groups.
Wake up!
Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 03:35 PMDawn said: “Our country is being overrun by people who want things ‘my way or no way’.”
You are right! I remember Bush saying ‘you are either with us or against us.’ Our country has been overrun since 2000 by such folks in the White House.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 03:49 PMDawn wrote:
“Just about every time a Kerry supporter is being interviewed and is asked a direct question about Kerry and what he plans to do as President the answer has nothing to do with Kerry.”
Do you mean the pundits who support Kerry, or do you mean Democratic Senators and Congresspeople? If its the pundits, don’t listen to them, their opinions are just as good as your own will be when you visit Kerry’s website and read over his plans of what he intends to do if elected.
If its the latter group, well of course they are going to talk about Bush’s failings because their job hinges on how well their states are doing under Bush. Things have not been going well regarding state budgets across the country, so naturally a Democratic representative would have an axe to grind with the Republican administration.
“The majority of the campaign for Kerry centers around Bush bashing and Kerry being a war hero.”
This is completely untrue, but one might have to read something besides The Weekly Standard, and a channel other than Fox News to realize this.
“Kerry would make a better President because he is a war hero. It seems to be the only reason they can come up with.”
We’re at war (two of them actually) - therefore someone who has been to war seems likely to do a better job with that than the two in office who never went to war, never got shot at by an enemy, didn’t demand solid evidence to go to war, and who planned for war so badly that people are holding bake sales to purchase armor for the soldiers. (I’m not making that up. I personally belong to an organization who has done so) Also, the word “hero” means someone who shows great courage under fire, someone who is a quick thinker and strategic planner during horribly chaotic moments - qualities which this country might be interested in our leader possessing in the face of terrorism. .
“Why did Kerry take a home movie camera with him to Vietnam?
I’ve heard the camera belonged to someone else on Kerry’s boat - although Kerry obviously obtained the footage to use in his campaign.
“Why did he get out of there as fast as he possibly could?”
Because when a soldier is wounded enough times he gets to go home. Kerry served two tours of service and was wounded three times - and anyone who says he wounded himself on purpose with a grenade is completely off their rocker!
“What is the DNC really up to?”
Same thing as the RNC - trying to get their candidate elected - and neither one of them seem to care whether the fighting gets dirty.
“Why do we have a political party trashing our sitting President with so much anger?”
Because at least half the country (if not more) feels he’s been an extremely inept president and took us to one of our two wars optionally.
“I wonder how this looks to the rest of the world.”
Most of the World doesn’t like Dubya either, so they probably think that at least half (if not more) of the American people are only showing good judgement.
“It has got to be very encouraging to our enemies”
It doesn’t matter if we give them any further encouragement - all that matters is that we be prepared to stop terrorism before it happens. We aren’t prepared to do that, and our department of Homeland Security is not doing most of the things they need to do to keep the country safe.
“and those who just want to be able to say, ‘See. The government of the U.S.A. is not so wonderful.’”
We will never be liked and respected in every country on the planet. But we have never been as reviled as we are now under this administration - and I feel that this fact should bother more Americans that it currently seems to be bothering.
Posted by: Adrienne at September 15, 2004 04:07 PM
Joseph,
Kerry is for internationalizing the effort in Iraq.Again, he is going to do this how exactly? Maybe he can invade France and Germany and make them help us in Iraq. Good grief, can’t you just hear the sound bites in those statements? TADA… “I will make sure we have an International Coalition to help us in Iraq so we don’t have to shoulder 90% of the burden.” If I have to hear that for 50 more days I will stick an ice pick in my ear. But not until I mark my absentee ballot.
Kerry wants to encourage companies to stop hemorrhaging jobs overseas.OMG. A tax break for corporations. Isn’t that against his religion? And he is going to give corporations a tax break and at the same time tax income over $200,000 by raising taxes how much? 40%, 50% perhaps 60 or 70%. Of course they can afford it.
Kerry wants to be a little more fiscally responsible than Bush.Health Care paid for everyone! That’s fiscally responsible!
Kerry supports stem cell research.So does President Bush, just not embryonic stem cell research. And even embryonic stem cell research is legal. Just not with Government money.
Kerry wants to invest in alternative energies.So does President Bush. Kerry is going to do this by not supporting drilling in the Artic of course! So this will be done in how many lifetimes?
Kerry wants to have innovation be a driving force in the American economy again.Don’t look now but the economy is not as bad as he would lead us to believe. More gloom and doom, more chicken little with the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Go to Costco on the weekend, the lines are 10 to 20 people deep. Try to book a hotel room in Las Vegas. That must be where all the evil people go to spend their money. Knock, Knock the economy is rebounding. What it doesn’t need is a tax to drop on it like a wet blanket.
Kerry doesn’t appear to be beholden to the oil and coal industries.One day Kerry criticizes the President for not getting the OPEC Countries to lower the price of oil and when the prices come down he accuses the President of being in bed with them.
If you think he is getting his ideas across. Think again. His poll numbers are dropping even here in California which has gone down from an 18% lead a month ago to a 9% lead today. But there are still all those hanger ons. And many of them are posting on this board
Things have not been going well regarding state budgets across the country,So now the Federal Government is responsible for the ineptitude of State Governments. OMG, you must be aware that California has been run by Democrats for some time now and needed to recall the Governor just to stop the bleeding. I know you are from California so you must know this and yet this is the fault of the Bush Administration?
therefore someone who has been to war seems likely to do a better job with that than the two in office who never went to war, never got shot at by an enemy, didn’t demand solid evidence to go to war, and who planned for war so badly that people are holding bake sales to purchase armor for the soldiers.
Perhaps the decimation of the military during the previous Administration should share some of the burden for this folly. But then again, he was a draft dodger. Correct?
Also, the word “hero” means someone who shows great courage under fire, someone who is a quick thinker and strategic planner during horribly chaotic moments - qualities which this country might be interested in our leader possessing in the face of terrorism.
Yes, of course. 3 scratches and a bruise qualifies you for 3 Purple Hearts. But don’t sign that form 180 so this could all be put to rest. That way we will truly know what a hero he is. HMMMMM must be hiding something… ya think?
I’ve heard the camera belonged to someone else on Kerry’s boat - although Kerry obviously obtained the footage to use in his campaign.
Actually he went out and bought one just prior to his starring role where he walked around the jungle holding a gun in a position that no combat soldier and no swiftie would dream of doing. And then there is the ammunition on his shoulder that doesn’t match the gun he is carrying. How can you not bash a guy when he is as comical as this?!!!!
Because when a soldier is wounded enough times he gets to go home. Kerry served two tours of service and was wounded three times - and anyone who says he wounded himself on purpose with a grenade is completely off their rocker!
Well actually a real hero would put a band-aid on a scratch and go back out. And no one said it was on purpose. That would imply some aptitude on his part. In his situation it was done through sheer carelessness and stupidity. Just sign that form 180 and all this speculation goes away in a heartbeat.
Because at least half the country (if not more) feels he’s been an extremely inept president and took us to one of our two wars optionally.
Sorry not any more. Check the polls. The more they get to know Kerry the lower his poll numbers go. Funny how that works when you have no message.
Of course optionally is a judgement. That is, if you call defending yourself optional.
Most of the World doesn’t like Dubya either, so they probably think that at least half (if not more) of the American people are only showing good judgement.Last time I voted I didn’t check to see what the rest of the world was thinking about us. Whatever it was, it must have been wrong because we were attacked when everyone liked us. I prefer not being liked if that is the price you pay for being liked.
all that matters is that we be prepared to stop terrorism before it happens.And Kerry has assured us that he will strike back as soon as we are attacked again? Comforting isn’t it?
But we have never been as reviled as we are now under this administration
We have always been reviled. No news here. The only difference is that they are saying it overtly rather than covertly and going behind our backs and consorting with known enemies as they have been known to do. But of course, that is what Democrats call Diplomacy!
Posted by: MAW at September 15, 2004 04:53 PM
It just dawned on me (no pun intended) that the two questions Dawn wants answered from 30 years ago are about the guy who DID go to Vietnam, not the guy who stayed home. Interesting.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at September 15, 2004 05:41 PMThe swift boat vets were proven wrong? Really? In what way?
I remember seeing them smeared (nice to do to a bunch of vietnam vet heroes, isn’t it?).
I remember an attempt to say ‘well, the official record agrees with Kerry’ because, well, they’re based on what Kerry said. Isn’t it nice to see Democrats believing in vietnam war documentation now? Imagine my surprise.
I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry sign the 1 simple form he needed to sign that would have given his supporters the evidence they needed to disprove much of what was being said.
I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry even once refute the charges made, instead attacking the Bush campaign for something they had no control over.
Which is, of course, what many people who are in the middle saw.
As I said before,
Do I believe John O’Neill 100%? not likely, the guy has a loooong grudge.
Do I believe Kerry 100%? not likely, the way he has evaded the whole issue is telling.
Do I believe that the truth lays somewhere in the middle between them, filtered through years of hatred, anger and recollections through a different viewpoint? Sure.
But you can’t just sit there and say they’ve been proven wrong when they haven’t. It’s dishonest.
The problem is that Kerry mishandled it and wouldn’t provide his records, which is causing others to question what they wouldn’t have questioned before.
The further problem is that Kerry, who said it was reprehensible to question someone’s patriotism and bring up what they did during vietnam, etc, got angry and started attacking Bush and Cheney in a freakish ‘revenge’ ploy that is going to eventually ruin his campaign, I believe. That is just my opinion, but if he doesn’t the course the campaign is running atm it’s going to get only worse for him.
And because of his linking 527’s to the respective parties in his attack against Bush about the group he’s just put his campaign in a much worse position with all of the stuff that Moveon.org is and will be coming out with being labelled back to him. And if it is discovered that one of these groups started by Moveon.org (Texans for Truth or something like that?) is behind the seemingly forged documents…
Well, let’s just say that it wouldn’t be a fun October. :/
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 15, 2004 06:26 PM“OMG, you must be aware that California has been run by Democrats for some time now and needed to recall the Governor just to stop the bleeding.”
I know that a significant percentage of that bleeding was due to Dubya taking the rate caps off our energy the minute he got into office to reward his good buddy “Kenny Boy” Lay for being his biggest “pioneer” campaign contributor. And I know that when Gray Davis begged for assistance during the time they were taking us all to the cleaners, Dubya did _nothing_. As a result of that crisis the state lost 9 billion dollars.
But to look at where our energy troubles really started you have to look to Republican governor Pete Wilson, elected in 1991 and who began energy deregulation in 1992 during the recession. Back then, Californias energy costs were among the highest in the nation, and steel manufacturers and other industrial companies were demanding cheaper power. Combine that with years of lobbying and millions of dollars in political contributions from energy firms which softened the resistance to deregulation and you have the recipe for our disaster. Among those that pushed hardest was Enron, who at the time was going from state to state, urging deregulation and offering money and promises galore.
“I know you are from California so you must know this and yet this is the fault of the Bush Administration?”
I’m not from California, but I’ve lived here for many years.
And yes, it is Dubya’s fault for not coming to Californias aid when we were paying energy rates to the tune of 250 per megawatt hour but which could occasionally spike to as much as 1000 dollars a megawatt hour.
A president who cared about the people he’s supposed to be working on behalf of would never allow them to be gouged during a heat wave in the summer while simultaneously having their state reduced to such financial straits simply to protect the profits of his friends in the energy business.
As for the rest of this post, I decline to respond. Everything else is simply a matter of opinion, and I’m certain there is no chance of finding a single point of agreement.
Posted by: Adrienne at September 15, 2004 07:12 PMDawn,
Between you and me, I want to vote for none of the above. Bush nor Kerry has leveled with the American Public. Our country is facing some real cold hard issues. America’s standing in the world is at stake in this election and no political party or media outlet is willing to talk about it.
The Globle economy that our leaders our currently using can not keep up demand for products. Bush wants to use the “Tickledown Theory” to slowly control the growth of our economy and Kerry wants to change the way our world governments look at the living standard income.
Here’s a few websites to look at:
Reorganization Plan No.9 of 1953
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=278514213044+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Living standard income
http://www.doleta.gov/llsil/2004/2004table5.cfm
NC Justice living income
www.ncjustice.org/LivingWage/execSummary2.htm
http://www.ncjustice.org/LivingWage/LIS2003/lis2003_sampson.htm
Economy of the US (A must read)
http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/encyclopedia/en/wikipedia/e/ec/economy_of_the_united_states.html
Definition of living standard income:
http://www.investorwords.com/4691/standard_of_living.html
Measure of living standard:
http://www.tutor2u.net/quiz/economics/jbc_econ_livingstandards_1.htm
www.logisticresearch.com/Cost_of_Living.pdf
Workforce Investment Act: 2000
http://www.ohioworkforce.org/
http://documents.workingforamerica.org/PDF/SelfSufficiency.pdf
One Major Issue in the way we think.
http://www.fapt.org/docs/98min.html
Judging Minimum Standard of Living:
http://www.law.sc.edu/dsc/is0212.htm
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Standard%20of%20living
American Standard of living: But beware!
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM154&page=teacher
Sorry, no links. I don’t quite got the hang of it yet. But the web sites show how complex of an economic question the next President and Congress must answer.
P.S. Welcome!
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2004 07:37 PMDavid. Not again.
I said, “Our country is being overrun by people who want things ‘my way or no way’.”
David said, “You are right! I remember Bush saying ‘you are either with us or against us.’ Our country has been overrun since 2000 by such folks in the White House.”
You have got to know that is not what I meant.
This is where you got that quote from me…
‘I can’t imagine being the President.
Everyone wants something done their way and if it isn’t the bashing begins. Any President we have has got to be proficient in the art of compromise.
The people that come with their issues have to be ready to compromise.
Our country is being overrun by people who want things ‘my way or no way’.’
Is that what is called ‘taken out of context’? or just another golden opportunity to bash Bush.
Posted by: Dawn at September 15, 2004 08:36 PMHenry,
Thanks for the welcome and I like what you said about not voting for either one. I agree that the media leaves alot of things out.
I did not like the decision made to stop showing the airplanes hitting the towers and them collapsing because it was making the American people too angry.
Too angry ??
Posted by: Dawn at September 15, 2004 08:44 PMMAW:
Kerry is for internationalizing the effort in Iraq.Again, he is going to do this how exactly? Maybe he can invade France and Germany and make them help us in Iraq.
Bush has already made serious efforts to broaden international support for both Afghanistan and Iraq. I like that. I want more of that. Kerry has said explicitly that he won’t go into how he would do it, so why even ask me? Would I expect Kerry to follow through and succeed at whatever he has planned? I give it about a 40% chance. I have Bush’s chance of success at about 32%.
Kerry wants to encourage companies to stop hemorrhaging jobs overseas.OMG. A tax break for corporations. Isn’t that against his religion?
This doesn’t sound like a rebuttal.
Kerry wants to be a little more fiscally responsible than Bush.Health Care paid for everyone! That’s fiscally responsible!
The pursuit of Universal Healthcare is one of his more daring proposals that I don’t necessarily agree with. I did say “a little” more responsible. If Kerry’s plans (in general, not regarding UH) are at about 2 trillion over ten years and Bush’s plans are about 3 trillion over ten years, then Kerry wins on this point.
Kerry supports stem cell research.So does President Bush, just not embryonic stem cell research. And even embryonic stem cell research is legal. Just not with Government money.
Kerry wants to invest in alternative energies.So does President Bush. Kerry is going to do this by not supporting drilling in the Artic of course! So this will be done in how many lifetimes?
Bush supports stem cell research like he supported the recently deceased assault weapons ban. Same with alternative energy.
Bush’s idea of alternative energy source? Coal. Okay, another misrepresentation. Clean-burning coal. That’s better, but it shouldn’t be one of the primary selling points of such policy.
I don’t support drilling ANWR and I’m glad Kerry feels the same. The search for alternative energy does not mean drill more oil.
Hydrogen cell cars aren’t lifetimes away. Which leads to my next point.
Kerry wants to have innovation be a driving force in the American economy again.Don’t look now but the economy is not as bad as he would lead us to believe. More gloom and doom, more chicken little with the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Did I say the economy was bad? No. I do happen to think the economy isn’t as cheery as Bush & company try to portray it but let’s leave that for a thread on the economy.
If you look into hybrid car technology you will find that it was invented here in the US. That’s innovation. But who holds the patents? Oops, not us. That doesn’t drive the US economy (as much as it could). I’m not saying this is Bush’s fault, I’m just pointing out an example of how innovation can propel the economy. Kerry wants to integrate this understanding into federal policy. I like that.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 08:56 PMDawn, Your welcome
Your right about what happened that day. It should stand as a wake up call. Follow the money and you will see which side of the coin Bush and Kerry is on. The world economy has to be changed for the good of mankind. How everthing works itself out depends on how well the younger generation learned from their parents.
Dawn, just who were you referring to when you said: “Our country is being overrun by people who want things ‘my way or no way’.”
I was absolutely serious about viewing Bush’s administration in just that way. Were you just as serious about anyone who doesn’t see things your way or Bush’s way?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 09:09 PMMAW-
“I will make sure we have an International Coalition to help us in Iraq so we don’t have to shoulder 90% of the burden.” If I have to hear that for 50 more days I will stick an ice pick in my ear. But not until I mark my absentee ballot.
Are you for us shouldering 90% of the burden? tell me something, do you believe that the Coalition of the willing is actually all that willing? It’s easy for Bush to get people to say they’re with us. How about him getting those people to actually put in money, and troops and resources. I mean it’s one thing for you to criticize Kerry’s promises to build international support if Bush never sought that , made a point of pride of saying that the Anglo American Alliance was about it for us, but Bush felt it necessary to say he had a coalition himself, just like his father, and that his was made up of many countries all supporting us. A nice thing, if it defrays costs and relieves the strains on our military.
It’s not doing that. 90 percent of the costs and casualties are ours. What’s Bush’s plan for lessening the burden on our soldiers, winning this war. Funny, I haven’t heard any.
I don’t know, MAW. You criticize Kerry for taking a tax break position, when your candidates main position is an ill-affordable tax break. He’s running half deficits (true or false? You tell me. What are the numbers?)
You criticize Kerry for health care plans when Bush not only created a brand new entitlement, but also when over a hundred billion dollars past projections funding it! I hope you’re not for cutting government waste, because that contradiction might just give you a stroke thinking about it.
On stem cells, Bush took a solomonic approach, but unfortunately forgot to leave the baby in one piece. There were far fewer stem cell lines than his people advertised.
On drilling in Alaska, I’d ask you this question: what are we going to have to live with longer, a hydrocarbon economy, or the wilderness in Alaska? I think the latter will around long after we’ve declared vehicles with internal combustion engines antiques, and so we will have to live with the effects of drilling and such for much longer.
On the economy. Leave it to you to say that pronouncing innovation, new technology and the like as the future of the economy as being pessimistic. The economy may be rebounding, but from what? I think it’s rebounding from the damage of the Bush policies. People are only gradually coming to trust investment again, and they’re still skittish. Those vaunted tax cuts were supposed to add six million jobs. Bush is still about a million short of breaking even.
Plus, those tax cuts are money out of taxpayers pockets. The American government will have to pay back that debt with interest. Do you think paying more out more revenue to get taxpayers the same things is economically sound? I’d rather take the hit now, keep our debts down, and take this economy forward on real gains instead of government manipulation of the economy, which is exactly what the tax cuts are. You know who you should read on this? Paul O’Neill, in Ron Suskind’s book The Price of Loyalty. Now some pundits may have convinced you that O’Niell’s main concern was Iraq, but in all actuality, it’s the economy this is about. This is a guy who ran a corporation for a living for some time, who calls Alan Greenspan a friend, and talked with him over breakfast on many occasions. You should read it.
That the economy still grows at all is a tribute to America’s economic strength. But there’s evidence that the gears are beginning to grind. Kerry’ assertions about a shrinking middle class have been born out by the evidence.
So now the Federal Government is responsible for the ineptitude of State Governments. OMG, you must be aware that California has been run by Democrats for some time now and needed to recall the Governor just to stop the bleeding. I know you are from California so you must know this and yet this is the fault of the Bush Administration?
Do you know what an unfunded mandate is? It’s the government saying, you have to do this by law, but you’re going to foot the bill. Because the states have no choice about this, and because the economy’s gone in the tank, the states have had two choices- cut their own programs, and suffer the political backlash, and raise taxes. Which do you think they push, since they can’t go into deficit.
As for California’s troubles, I guess you could say that the energy market manipulation would have been impossible but for the deregulation Republicans pushed through. That Deregulation allowed people to starve California of energy on purpose, to artificially drive down supply and push up demand. Beautiful. They also pushed through the bills that deregulated accounting and corporate finance, resulting in the corporate scandals and loss of wealth that further compounded the nation’s economic problems.
Perhaps the decimation of the military during the previous Administration should share some of the burden for this folly. But then again, he was a draft dodger. Correct?
The Cold War was over. There was no reason to continue with an immense defense budget, that your side would admit in a second was meant to bankrupt the Russians (Whether it did that is open to question). With the Russians kaput, it was only going to serve to pile debt on us. Now don’t start passing the buck now, your Vice president was one of the leaders, in the Defense department in downsizing the bases and the forces we no longer needed to fight the Cold War.
Yes, of course. 3 scratches and a bruise qualifies you for 3 Purple Hearts. But don’t sign that form 180 so this could all be put to rest. That way we will truly know what a hero he is. HMMMMM must be hiding something… ya think?
HMMMM, has Bush signed his? Me, I don’t expect anybody’s going to willingly let people have documents to misinterpret or interpret for their own ends. Kerry’s not missing important documents, you know. Your president is. Five kinds of them in fact, including those regarding the revocation of his flight status.
Actually he went out and bought one just prior to his starring role where he walked around the jungle holding a gun in a position that no combat soldier and no swiftie would dream of doing. And then there is the ammunition on his shoulder that doesn’t match the gun he is carrying. How can you not bash a guy when he is as comical as this?!!!!
The home movies were done on their days off, reenactments of the days events, probably no different than goofy videos tons of American soldiers shoot with their DV cameras now. The fact that you’re being so serious about something they probably did as a hoot, indicates just how much your hatred of Kerry has made your side uptight. Breathe, relax.
And Kerry has assured us that he will strike back as soon as we are attacked again? Comforting isn’t it?It is comforting. Far more comforting than Bush’s “dead or alive” remark, three years after it’s utterance. At least my candidate hasn’t said catching Bin Laden is unimportant, didn’t promise to smoke them out of their holes, then let them run away out of our reach.
Rhinehold-
The SwiftVets attacked Kerry, a Vietnam Vet first, challenged his medals, challenged his braver, challenged just about everything about him as a soldier. If they did not expect that the treatment they showed to Kerry would be the treatment they got in return, they were fools.
Besides, there is plenty of evidence, documentary, personal accounts and the like that shed doubt on botht the intentions and the recollections of these people. If you choose to Ignore it, I can’t give it to you.
I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry sign the 1 simple form he needed to sign that would have given his supporters the evidence they needed to disprove much of what was being said.I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry even once refute the charges made, instead attacking the Bush campaign for something they had no control over.
I don’t remember Bush signing that form either.
I don’t remember Kerry needing to refute the charges, the news media did a spectacular job of that. Maybe they need more concentrated oppositional ads, but then again that could be a fatal kind of distraction. No easy choices in such matters of emotion and feel.
But the Swiftvets shot themselves in the foot in several ways. They had members speak up who had given contradictory messages about Kerry before, supporting him. That calls into question what their motivation was. According to a New York Times article, it could have been what they saw as an unflattering portrayal in a book by Kerry or an associate. It makes the passionate discourse as to what Kerry did seem like a the product of their own personal Grudge with Kerry, rather than of their actual, unfiltered experience.
Others made claims that were contradicted by parties other than Kerry, even by those who are opposed to Kerry, and in agreement with certain parts of the SwiftVets charges, concerning what he did after the war.
They omitted important context from what he testified to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, misrepresented his intent in a way that could be legitimately be labelled dishonest and disingenous.
In short, the SwiftVets gave a strong impression to many people that they weren’t about to let the facts get in the way of a good politcal attack.
Also, I don’t like their kind of hysterics. I like revelations that shock even when given in an even tone of voice. All too often, when people like Zell Miller make their claims, it’s all emotion, passion, but little substance.
As of right now, I think the four documents related on 60 Minutes were forgeries. What kind of forgeries, is another matter. More on this soon.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2004 09:18 PMDavid,
My way ? I don’t believe I said I wanted anything my way. I don’t believe I said I wanted everything Bush’s way.
The only way I could truly have everything my way is to go live alone on an island or another planet.
Then I would be terribly lonely and I wouldn’t have anyone to argue with.
Compromise.
I was referring to just about anyone who stands for one side of an issue or the other.
Posted by: Dawn at September 15, 2004 10:31 PMWell, the observation regarding Monica Lewinski may have been quick and dirty but it’s still apt. There are relationships between how the right is trying to portray the DNC/left’s attacks on Bush and what they actually did to Clinton.
You might want to avoid implicating the RNC in this thread about Bush bashing, but context is relevant. Why do Democrats hate Bush so much? You can’t ignore the Lewinski scandal if you want to really understand the answer.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2004 11:01 PMThe SwiftVets attacked Kerry, a Vietnam Vet first, challenged his medals, challenged his braver, challenged just about everything about him as a soldier. If they did not expect that the treatment they showed to Kerry would be the treatment they got in return, they were fools.No one is disputing that they should have been countered. I wish Kerry had. What did Kerry do though? He took that chance to take a shot at Bush, which was a drastic mistake. Had he simply countered the charges, with fervor, I think this would have gone away long ago.
Besides, there is plenty of evidence, documentary, personal accounts and the like that shed doubt on botht the intentions and the recollections of these people. If you choose to Ignore it, I can’t give it to you.And there is plety of evidence, documentary, personal accounts and the like that shed doubt on both Kerry and his recollections of events.
They should be examined, charge by charge. You have hundreds of vets who have signed legal affidavits that if they could be proven to be lying could land them in jail. You can’t say ‘they are wrong about the silver star and Thurlow has some problems with accepting the bronze star for the same thing now’ and label the whole group as invalidated.
There is good evidence that the first purple heart was aquired under false pretenses and now there is a Navy Document that supports the Swiftboat Vets in regards to the Silver Star w/ Valor. Is the document a real Navy document? Well, thanks to Dan Rather I will wait a little bit before accepting it as real, but it does look like the Navy docs that I’ve seen (being a disabled Navy Vet I’ve seen a few).
I’ve also read that the person who is listed as signing the Silver Star w/ Valor certification, former Navy Secretary John Lehman, said 2 weeks ago that he never signed that award. I don’t know the veracity of this charge yet either, but will be investigating. Is he lying? Forgetful? Did an aide sign for him? Was it a forged signature by someone else? Who knows. But these are valid questions being raised that should be answered.
And John won’t answer them, he, and you, are expecting everyone to sign off on the accusations wholesale without looking at each one critically. And for the most part the national tv news media has looked the other way, but there are others doing research, much to Dan Rather’s chagrin, that will continue to look into the issues and find out the closest thing to what we can call ‘the truth’ as there is.
I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry sign the 1 simple form he needed to sign that would have given his supporters the evidence they needed to disprove much of what was being said.
I DIDN’T remember seeing Kerry even once refute the charges made, instead attacking the Bush campaign for something they had no control over.
I don’t remember Bush signing that form either.
My statements had nothing to do with Bush. You’d think that by now democrats would learn that ‘deflection’ doesn’t work.
I don’t remember Kerry needing to refute the charges, the news media did a spectacular job of that. Maybe they need more concentrated oppositional ads, but then again that could be a fatal kind of distraction. No easy choices in such matters of emotion and feel.
Spectacular job? I saw them parrot the attacks towards Bush, spending 2 weeks asking if he was going to denounce the ad, which he had done several times, simply because he didn’t denounce it the way the democrats wanted him to. They did show the ads, then debate about ‘what that meant to the campagin’ but a serious look into the charges? Hardly.
But the Swiftvets shot themselves in the foot in several ways. They had members speak up who had given contradictory messages about Kerry before, supporting him. That calls into question what their motivation was.
This may call into question the motives of THOSE individuals. You are attempting to paint with a wide brush?
According to a New York Times article, it could have been what they saw as an unflattering portrayal in a book by Kerry or an associate.
Sure, for those individuals that might be. But that is a small percentage of the large number of individuals who signed affidavits…
It makes the passionate discourse as to what Kerry did seem like a the product of their own personal Grudge with Kerry, rather than of their actual, unfiltered experience.
Again, for those perhaps. I also think that O’Neill has a long time grudge against Kerry for what happened after he returned. Same for many of them. But that doesn’t invalidate charges wholesale.
Others made claims that were contradicted by parties other than Kerry, even by those who are opposed to Kerry, and in agreement with certain parts of the SwiftVets charges, concerning what he did after the war.
This does make a person pause and consider what is going on. It does not PROVE anything, that would require actually looking into the charges and evaluating them with the evidence, and taking into account the parties involved, etc.
I don’t pretend to say one way or the other which one is telling the truth and which is lying. I have contended that I believe it is a little of both for both sides, though I think lying is a strong word and that there may be some confused recollections or that two different people were viewing the same thing with two different perspectives. That happens all the time, ask 3 eye-witnesses to any accident and you may get 3 different stories, you have to weed out what the possible truth is from them.
They omitted important context from what he testified to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, misrepresented his intent in a way that could be legitimately be labelled dishonest and disingenous.
You have to take it all in then, remember the opening line “…I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony….” So he is speaking as the group, which he is a part of and agrees with. I’ve read the Transcript of the testimony” and attempting to say that he was ‘just reporting what he heard’ really does a disservice to what he said. He said that in the investigation that ‘WE’ did of over 150 honorably discharged vets, that they told stories that things things happened and ‘We’ feel that ‘We’ have to report it. Why would you report on something that you didn’t believe happened? Why would you get up in a senate hearing and make that statement if you didn’t believe it to be true? By making that statement you are asserting that you believe that they are telling you the truth.
Kerry was leading a charge, he was not simply reporting on what he had heard. Yet, as Paul O’Neill attempted to do then, and never was able to achieve, was to find 1 person willing to come foward and admit to what they reported so that investigations could take place!
In short, the SwiftVets gave a strong impression to many people that they weren’t about to let the facts get in the way of a good politcal attack.
Just like the current DNC and Kerry attacks against Bush. I can understand it from a group of disgruntled veterans of vietnam, especially one who has devoted much of his life to try and destory Kerry for what he did, but from a national committe and a presidential election campaign?
That is where I start having a problem.
As of right now, I think the four documents related on 60 Minutes were forgeries. What kind of forgeries, is another matter. More on this soon.
Oh, the tantalization. I look forward to reading it, provided it isn’t the ‘Karl Rove supplied the documents”’ arguement, that has been done before and would really lower your arguments in my eyes a lot. Posted by: Rhinehold at September 16, 2004 12:19 AM
JB,
My observation of the Lewinski scandal is two fold.
1) Prosecutor failed to ask correct question to President Clinton. As a lawyer, he should of known the difference between the word relationship and encounter.
2) The Republican lead House failed to confront the Clinton to define relationship since the law allows it to mean many things. Total lie? No. Moral Defense? You bet ya!
Now, I don’t condon his actions, but the Republican party had spent so much of our money just to find that out. And yet they want us to believe Bush is a born again saint. Please, give me a break.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16