Third Party & Independents: Archives

I think you’re exactly right about Kerry’s track record in congress, where wheeling and dealing are the way things actually get done. Because the final votes are a matter of public record, they make a very big target. That’s politics and, I believe, a big reason why it’s very difficult for former congressmen to run for president.

Unless folks want to go back and closely examine Bush’s record as Texas governor and before, then they’re left with what he’s done in the past three or four years.

A big problem for Democrats, it seems to me, is that most of his presidency has been dominated by the war on terror, thus making him a wartime president. He has said that’s a title he doesn’t want, but I think the public perception is that he’s in charge and has, to this point at least, kept the bad guys from attacking us again.

In a way there’s really no flip-flopping to Kerry, at all. He is a leftist, always was a leftist, and always will be a leftist. That he LIES, calling thousands of his Vietnam comrades war criminals and baby killers (thus coining the phrases by which returning veterans were spit upon by disgusting hippy misanthropes), that’s not really a flip-flop so much as a tried and true Marxist tactic, of “disinformation”. That he snuck into an American military unit for the express purpose of gathering the tools by which he could make such agit-prop more credible, that, too, is a Poputchik tactic. He’s been an enemy of America since the beginning, and he’s about to proclaim America’s final defeat in November.

Buckle your seatbelts for when that happens, because then the Patriot Act will be HIS to wield. Will the Swifties feel lucky, then, I wonder?

Ciggy, you have your timeline constructed wrong. Protester’s were shouting baby killers on Belle Isle in Detroit in 1968 and 1969. Years before Kerry gave testimony before congress.

By your incorrect timeline, you would have folks believe Kerry invented the criticism. The facts just simply contradict that concept.

David I don’t think an explanation will help Ciggy.

[Comment deleted for violating our Critique the Message, NOT the Messenger policy —-WatchBlog Manager ]

> he snuck into an American military unit for
> the express purpose of gathering the tools
> by which he could make such agit-prop more
> credible

What? Do you really believe this? Are you saying that he tried to put himself in the line of fire just so he could earn medals? Or are you simply saying that he joined the Navy thinking it would be safe but that a military record could be exploited?

You probably don’t know that he joined way back in 1966, when the war was still pretty popular and not at all perceived as a quagmire or a moral problem. You probably also don’t know that when he enlisted many of his friends were joining up at the same time. And that his father was in the Navy in WWII. Face it, the guy really wanted to be in the Navy. I doubt his motives in joining were any different than most other people who join the military.

> That he LIES, calling thousands of his
> Vietnam comrades war criminals and baby
> killers

Nothing he said was a lie, and nobody has proven otherwise. Sadly, American soldiers did commit atrocities. Also, he never blamed “thousands” of soldiers. In fact, he only ever blamed the Pentagon and the White House.

> the phrases by which returning veterans
> were spit upon by disgusting hippy
> misanthropes

As David pointed out, he hardly coined these phrases. Also, how can he be blamed for what hippy misanthropes do with the truth?

-Cf

Well, I’ve heard that he joined the Navy after learning he had a low draft number. This was a tactic many looked into because it was felt that joining the Navy gave a much better chance of surviving the war than being drafted into the Army. I certainly don’t fault this at all, many people did things like this in the past, like joining the Guard if they could or getting college defferments, that’s just the way the environment at the time was.

However, I do have a problem with his testimony after the war, quite a bit actually. And I am not convinced that there isn’t something in the Swift Boat controversy that should be looked into, but I suspect neither side of this issue are 100% right at all.

I, of course, disagree with anyone saying that they should not be able to buy ads or write books, it smacks of a prevention of free speech if you ask me, asking that the ads be pulled and the book be taken from the shelves of book stores sounds way too facist to me. It does require that people do their own checking (or rely on others to do it *shudder*) but I’d rather have too much information than not enough in the case of electing a president.

By the way, could someone please tell me what a misanthrope hippie is?

No such thing, man. Everybody knows that hippies were, like, all about peace and love. Well…okay, except for those who hated people in uniform (like military and police) and those who murdered people (like Manson and the campus bombers).

Misanthropes hate everybody. Hippies only hated certain people. Most of them grew up to become college professors and liberal politicians.

By the way, could someone please tell me what a misanthrope hippie is?

I’m sorry NOTOTH. I suppose that was a very poor attempt at humor.

Kerry isnt so much of a flip flopper as he is a consummate straddler. He doesnt so much change his position as never make one. Here’s a couple great examples.

Abortion: He says life begins at conception, but wants people to have the freedom of choice. In essence, what this means is that he is okay with someone deciding to end what he considers another human life. There is logic in saying no abortion is okay because it ends a human life. There is logic in saying that abortion is okay because the fetus is not yet a human life. But there is absolutely NO LOGIC in saying that its okay for people to decide to end a human life.

Death penalty: Kerry says he is against it, since thats what people want to hear. But then he goes on to say he is FOR the death penalty for terrorists.

What this means is that Kerry is FOR the death penalty when the crime reaches a certain proportion. He has no moral compunction to executing another human being. This is the same position that pro death penalty people have—-the amount of proportion is simply in a different spot.

So here is Kerry, trying to appear pro choice and anti death penalty when he really isnt. The nuances are just incredible.

What seems clear is that Kerry has always tried to jump on whatever passing bandwagon he thought might advance his political career. When he thinks being anti-war will do the trick, well, that’s what he is.

When he thinks being pro-war would help—well, then that’s what he is too. You can look at his entire life and see this pattern—in matters large and small (including his series of ever-richer wives). His “liberalism,” in the Senate, such as it is, is a result of representing what is arguably the most left-leaning state. Once he was running for president and he percieved the popularity of going to war with Iraq,
he made bellicose statements that actually went far beyond most administration officials. Then when Dean seemed to be gaining ground by being anti-war—presto, Kerry is anti-war again!

His so-called nuance is and has always been nothing more than poll-reading opportunism. If he were the senator from Utah, I have no doubt

“When he thinks being anti-war will do the trick, well, that’s what he is.”

So do you dispute the fact that he had written questioning the moral grounds of the war before he signed up? Do you dispute the fact that he joined in ‘66, when the war was still popular? Do you dispute that he requested duty in-country on a patrol craft (whose occupants had a 60% mortality rate), rather than requesting service in-theatre, on a deepwater vessel away from the fighting?

Everything I’ve heard about John Kerry constructs a portrait that I completely understand and identify with. Supporting your country while opposing your country’s policies - volunteering for combat duty in a conflict you feel morally ambiguous about… it draws a portrait of a real, complicated, consistent, patriotic and brave individual.

Understanding a *real* person is much more difficult than understanding the caricature you’ve set up, I know.

By the way, could someone please tell me what a misanthrope hippie is?

I’m sorry NOTOTH. I suppose that was a very poor attempt at humor.
Posted by Rocky at August 27, 2004 09:35 PM

As was mine.

Cheers.

The following is courtesy of Gaelen Burns in a comment in the Democratic Column under Partisan Blinders:

Via Mr. Marshall:

“We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world.”
— George W. Bush
July 30th 2004.

“I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
— George W. Bush
Aug. 29th, 2004.

Now that is a flip flop and playing to the political winds in light of all the commentary about how the War On Terrorism can never be won including my article before any others were written: War on Terror and Political Parties