"What are we going to do about John Kerry?" he said.

John Kerry isn't the problem.

John Kerry is a symptom of the problem.

How on earth did that guy get their presidential nomination?

Personally, I'm much more concerned about what we are going to do with our future. Shame on me for thinking that politics is about choosing people who will serve us in government, rather than about playing politics-as-a-sport, eh?

I've got young kids. They won't care if a failed ex-presidential candidate can't remember his lines. They're going to care a lot, however, if they have to fix the messes that our generation is busily creating.

It's not about Kerry forgetting his lines, Zvi.

Anyway, how am I playing politics as a sport here? I already said I'm not voting for Republicans this time. Neither is my wife. Neither is the minister who bemoaned Kerry above.

I thought the bit dialogue was funny. So did my wife. That's why she told me about it.

It's also a subtle defense of Democrats. Read it again, and think about it outside the "politics as sport" box.

Kerry's misfire was just a stark reminder of what a pathetic candidate he was. (And I voted for him). Even if he had delivered the joke as scripted he was still calling the President of the United States stupid. While we may all think it, many people would take that as being disrespectful of the office. It just shows what a tin ear he has when it comes to politics.

What's really sad is it's been so long since I voted for a presidential candidate because I thought they would be a positive influence on the country.

I think the media, particularly the cable news channels, have turned politics into a blood sport and must frighten off a lot of potentially good candidates.

Anyway for once I'm genuinely excited about someone-- Barak Obama. (And I'm a independent) Hopefully we've hit the bottom and it will only get better from here.

Keep up the good work Michael.

Better question. What are we going to do about George Bush? Hold his feet to the fire? And no, that's not torture, it's a no-brainer.

How on earth did that guy get their presidential nomination?

Other mysteries:

How the hell did that guy [Kerry] get 50 million votes on 04?

How the hell does he get elected Senator unopposed every 6 years (even if its Mass)?

How the hell did that guy [Kerry] get 50 million votes on 04?

By not being George W. Bush. That's a guy who has a real talent for infuriating people.

I listened to what Kerry was saying, looked at what he had done, and pretty much concluded that was the main reason most people would have to vote for the guy. Kerry isn't a charismatic speaker, his foreign policy was a replay of Clinton's, his domestic policy was democratic boilerplate, and his accomplishments in the Senate... well, let me know if there are any.

How the hell does he get elected Senator unopposed every 6 years (even if its Mass)?

Dunno.

Everyone, right and left, realizes Kerry just flubbed his lines. The reason people have a problem with it, and the reason this tempest-in-a-teapot is symbolic of Democrats' problems in general, is that it was a Freudian slip. He represents the generation that spit on soldiers, much like Strom Thurmond represented the generation that enforced Jim Crow. Disillusioned though I may be with W, it still can't make me throw my support to someone like that.

I don't buy the "flubbed his lines" at all....I've read the so-called prepared remarks; they make no sense and reek of after-the- fact spin. And Kerry more than "represents" the generation that spit on soldiers - he built his career by slandering and opposing the US military.

No, I buy the "mask slipped" theory of this tempest-in-a-teapot. I only hope that the Democrat condemnation of Kerry's "quip" is a sign of sanity in a party that has not exhibited much of late.

How the hell does he get elected Senator unopposed every 6 years (even if its Mass)?

1. It is almost impossible to unseat an incumbent Senator through the primary process even if he's generally unpopular, look at how the political and medial establishment reacted with horror when the Democrats in CT threw out Lieberman.

2. The Republicans run fairly unappealing carpetbagger candidates against him like Mitt Romney.

3. I would guess that Kerry is probably going to have a much harder time holding his senate seat next time around.

4. I think Priscilla is completely insane, please see a therapist.

I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past when I thought one candidate was clearly better than another, but sometimes I abstain on principle. A lot of people get upset when I tell them this, saying I am neglecting my civic duty etc., but I don't see it that way. When an incumbent deserves to be punished but the other candidates haven't made a compelling enough case for me to vote for them, then I think abstention is the only reasonable choice. I did vote Republican for the Senate this year because my state had a compelling Republican candidate (amazing, isn't it?), but I abstained in the House for the reasons I just mentioned. However, even though I always vote FOR candidates, I recognize that a lot of people out there who vote AGAINST the candiates that they hate most.

What does this have to do with John Kerry? I think he (and, sadly, a lot of other Democrats) are the accidental beneficiaries of a lot of votes against Republicans rather than votes for the Democratic party and its ideas. Of course some Republicans benefit from this kind of phenomenon as well, but polls and anectodal evidence suggest to me that it's less important for them than it is for the Dems. As an example, my parents just can't stomach Bush, and couldn't since well before 9/11 and the Iraq war, but they really aren't all that liberal. The go to church every week, they don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, they don't like affirmative action, etc. But there's just something about having a person with a Texas twang in the White House that grates on them, and has from day one, causing them to attribute everything bad that happens in the world to the evil Bush (and again, this attitude precedes 9/11 and the Iraq war). I love my Mom and Dad, but to be honest, I think it's just plain snobbery that motivates their hatred, the same kind of snobbery that slips out whenever Kerry lets his guard down.

Anyway, that's my take on why so many people voted for Kerry in 04. There's a big element of snobbery in it, and Kerry's recent comments just reminded a large part of the country that the Dems think they're a bunch of inbreds.

Stacy-

Kerry did not "flub his lines," he revealed his true feelings for the military. He has had nothing but contempt for them since his Vietnam days, remember his stabbing his fellow vets in the back in 1971 - for political gain?

This is symptomatic of the top Dem "leadership," remember Clinton's "I loathe the military?" And Hillary would not allow uniformed military members in the White House.

He got caught speaking his mind, never mind that the troops are better educated than the general population, and in this age of instant news, got caught. He's now trying to back-pedal without really apologizing.

The guy is scum, pure and simple.

I'm taking you out of my bookmarks.

joking

4. I think Priscilla is completely insane, please see a therapist.

ummm, ok

Some of you clearly don't know what "freudian slip" means.

What are we going to do about John Kerry?

And Pelosi, and Kucinich, and Murtha, and Kennedy, and Dean, and Gore, and Rangel, and Berger and ... What, indeed, are we going to do about the Democratic Party? It's got to be the largest collection of fossils outside of the American Museum of Natural History. And the guestion remains, how could a complete zero like Kerry get nominated? How could anyone vote for the man after he appeared on stage, saluted, and reported for duty? It was total farce.

Some of you clearly don't know what "freudian slip" means

Sorry Stacy!!! I read through your comment too quickly, and didn't really catch the gist of what you said, just shot from the hip at the first part. My apologies - guess I should slow down!!!!

The real problem is that both Bush and Kerry were lousy candidates. Out of a population of 300 Million, are these really the best that could be found?

This is the basic problem with all the democracies that have been captured by the "party system". Instead of a vote for the best out of several good candidates, you are taking part in a competitive sport with big money prizes.

As noted above, Kerry got lots of votes just for not being George Bush. A better question might be: How did he get the Democrats' nomination in the first place? After all, he wasn't any more compelling a speaker before the convention, was he?

I would suggest that perhaps he got the nomination because primary voters figured that he had the best chance of beating Bush. Why? Because he was a decorated veteran, and so might be able to partially deflect the usual Bush "anybody who differs from me is committing treason" campaign tactic. (Too bad they reckoned without the Swift Boat tactic.)

Like it or not, a Presidential candidate who is apparently weak on national security (however you define that) is simply not going to win. Which meant that Dean would have gone down even worse, had he gotten the nomination. And it would appear that the people wo voted in the Democratic primaries in '04 realized that -- may not have liked it, but at least recognized reality.

I don't believe Kerry's allegations that he just flubbed his lines. What he said is entirely consistent with what he has been saying for years. From his testimony in 1972 about war crimes and soldiers being like "Genghis Khan," to American soldiers in Iraq terrorizing women and children, to his shameful remarks about our soldiers being stupid. Kerry is a pompous dickhead, full of himself and full of crap.

"The real problem is that both Bush and Kerry were lousy candidates. Out of a population of 300 Million, are these really the best that could be found?"

Well I think ol' TJ summs it up:

I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office.
Thomas Jefferson

Why would any sane person put themselves through all of that?

However, in the words of another (in)famous leader:
What luck for rulers, that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler

The cream rises to the top, where it quickly spoils.

end quotes.

The Swift Boat Veterans knew John Kerry.

John Kerry is not a friend of the troops.

John Kerry is a disgrace.

His affiliation with the Democrats speaks volumes.

His affiliation with the Democrats speaks volumes.

Oh, come on. I am also "affiliated" with the Democrats, although very loosely and at arm's length and in a love-hate sort of way. My wife, on the other hand, is a real-deal Democrat. And she agrees that Kerry is an obnoxious ass.

Joe Lieberman is also "affiliated" with the Democrats. It takes a bit more than merely that to "speak volumes." If Kerry were affiliated with Michael Moore, that would speak volumes. (Hello Jimmy Carter.)

How sammy small, thanks for those insightful comments, it was just what the debate was missing...mindless repetition of rightwing spin!

Thats "How" is supposed to be "Wow"!

Kerry's "slip" was no slip at all. He obviously heard the words as they were coming out of his own mouth and did not stop to correct himself. In fact, he did not correct himself and let the comment stand as it was for almost two days. Left uncorrected, his statement can only be interpreted to say soldiers are stupid. Only after he came under intense fire did Kerry come up with a very lame apology and excuse, that he messed up a joke.
If it was a freudian slip, why did he not correct himself immediately. I guess he thought it was now safe to bash soldiers.
That guy is an idiot.

Point taken, lets rephrase that last remark to read "senior Democratic leaders"

New question - What are we going to do about Richard Perle?
Next question - What are we going to do about Ted Haggard?
Look, over there, John Kerry.

Wow! How quickly a humorous story about Kerry's incompetence as a campaigner turned into a)a reason to bash the Democrats and b)say what a mean nasty, unpatriotic, traitorous scum Kerry is! true colors revealed. Believe it or not, Kerry did what he believed was right when he campaigned against the Vietnam war. And again when he ran for president. I think he is a good man and he served his country well. He's just a lousy politician and for such an "educated" man, he can't speak worth a damn. And whatever the exact opposite of charisma is, Kerry has it. I'm sure he's a good Senator. How he got elected, I don't know.

Oh damn, another question - What are we going to do about the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times editorial? Couldn't they have devoted space to criticizng Kerry, instead of asking that Saint Donald be fired?

Many of us saw these recently highlighted deficiecies in Kerry long ago, and wonder why so many others did not.

I'm glad to learn you and other liberals are embarassed by his actions, too. I'm encouraged.

""anybody who differs from me is committing treason" campaign tactic

The more correct Rep issue is this: you either want to win in Iraq, or lose.

In this respect, Iraq and every war is like Vietnam. Either win, or lose.

Winning ONLY happens when ... the enemy stops fighting. The enemy decides the timetable for you to win. Japan could have surrendered before Hiroshima; and before Nagasaki; and also NOT surrendered then. Japan chose the time for America to win.

Wanting 'peace' on YOUR timetable can only be achieved by accepting a loss. You stop fighting, your enemy wins.

Does Kerry want the US to win in Iraq? I really think he, and most Dems, and most press, do NOT want Bush to be successful in Iraq.

Dems voted after 1974 to cut funding to S. Vietnam -- Dems voted to lose.

Dems are stuck in Iraq -- either support winning with Bush (whom they hate, out of snobbery, out of pro-choice, out of hating tax-cuts), or not...

Winning the War on Terror will be very, very expensive. More troops one obvious need (educated or not). It will require a commitment at least as large as the Greatest Generation's in WWII. In WWII the tax rates maxed out at 94%. I'm tired of my parents whining about their sacrifice. Let's hike our max income tax rate to 95% to show them we can also sacrifice.

I've been workin with the dems this season. there's as much venom and hatred towards kerry as there is to bush in the ranks. everyone hates kerry. looking back, you gotta ask two questions -- how in the world did we nominate him? and how in the world did he get so close to winning?

Michael, I rarely comment here but this thread has spurred me to comment. My quandry regarding the Democrat Party and it's leaders stems from the dissonance of the party itself. The old guard unionists concentrated on raising the standard of living of the blue collar group, were very patriotic, and in general, pro American. The other side of the party were intellectually Socialist/Communist who, while sympathetic to the Unionist side looked down on the "poor souls" thinking all the time that they knew of a better way for society to be run.
With the demise of the Unionist cohort, they have largely succeeded, the Socialist Utopians have inherited the party. They have no new ideas for the country that we have not already seen in the world but they keep on keepin on. In the aftermath of Vietnam they have learned nothing but still regard this country as flawed, the cause of all things wrong in the world.
Part and parcel with this world view is their shame of being American. They cannot offer a solution that in their minds can make America stronger because that is something they fear more than life itself. It is time for the Democrat Party to decide if it is valid in today's world.

We live in a two party country. that is the way it has evolved over the years. Yes, Americans like to keep things simple; positive of negative, right or wrong etc. This is something the nuanced Jr. Sen from MA cannot stand, it is also why many of the electorate hate GB.

"American in Europe" has it right, but is still missing an element.

However it came to be, today's Democratic Party sees itself as urban sophisticates. A large and highly annoying segment of the Party is extremely elitist about it; if you ain't got a Masters in some fuzzy study and a third- or fourth-quintile income, you ain't shit. See all the bloviating about "the smart party". As part of that, elitist Democrats (not all are) have adopted the "hopeless losers" stereotype of military volunteers, and don't know anything about how the modern military works because they can't bring themselves to condescend to learn anything about such a pack of low-lifes. And unfortunately for Democrats who don't feel that way, that's the group that has taken over the Party leadership. Clinton, Pelosi, Dean -- and John Kerry.

Now the funny thing is that George Bush is, by birth and upbringing, a member of the class the elitist Democrats approve of. (He got criticism of that from the "right" during the campaigns.) But George Bush has abandoned his roots; he has voluntarily left the world of Kennebunkport and Volvos, and joined the (as Democratic elitists see it) crude, rude, unsophisticated lowlifes of the South and West. This is the source of the vituperative reaction to Bush. The hardest thing for True Believers to accommodate is an apostate.

It was inevitable that the Democrats would nominate an elitist urban sophisticate, probably an Easterner. They started out with Dean, but Dean is just a little too brazen about his elitism; and like it or not, a substantial number of Americans are knowledgeable about the military and either support it or give it tacit approval, and Dean's pure-quill vision of the military as stupid violent thugs is repellent to them. So for that among other reasons Dean was highly unlikely to get anywhere.

Enter John Kerry. He looks ideal. He's so much of an educated Eastern sophisticate he's practically incapacitated. And he's served in the military, got medals even, so that's all right -- the violent thugs will approve -- but he's recanted and testified that they are violent thugs, so the granola set can get behind him.

And if Kerry really were what his public record indicates, he'd have been a shoo-in -- Hell, I'd have voted for him. But he isn't, and Democrats, especially urban elitist Democrats, don't have enough knowledge of the military to make that judgement. Take it from one who knows and hears it all the time, guys: the stereotype you hold of the military was obsolescent when Kerry and I were serving, and is now so totally obsolete you might as well be thinking about Darius the Great. And John Kerry is at best a poseur, and at worst a self-centered ignoramus who got sent to combat when he didn't expect it, and moved Heaven and Earth to get out as quickly as possible, abandoning his responsibilities and duties without a thought to preserve his precious hide -- then lied like a (sterotypical) trooper about how and why he did so.

This is already too long, so I won't go into specifics, but specifics aren't really necessary if you'll just revisit the Swift Boat Vets for a moment. Forget the charges. Focus on the fact that of over two hundred people who served with John Kerry under fraught circumstances, all but three are either willing to say the man's a scumbag or lend their names to that statement. Democracy, right? Two hundred to three is a pretty sizeable majority.

What Democrats need to "do about Kerry" is use him as evidence that your educated sophistication is missing a few important items. He got the nod as candidate because you are profoundly ignorant about a subject he was willing, even eager, to lie about to his own aggrandizement. And if you don't stop and make an effort to figure out what's going on in the real world, you'll do it again -- and be embarrassed again.

Regards,
Ric

OT (or maybe not):

I have a small question.

Over the last three weeks the Gov of Iraq and MNF-I have announced recruiting, training and equipping programs to increase the manpower of the Iraqi Army by 37 percent over the next nine months:

- 18,000 personnel to replace combat losses, desertions and BCDs.
- 12,000 personnel to over-man the IA combat Battalions at 110 percent.
- 18,700 personnel to establish 3 Division HQs, 5 Brigade HQs, 20 Battalions and 1 SOF Battalion.

The specific stated intent is to provide for a "Moble Strategic Reserve" for the Iraqi Army by the end of this FY. The announcement specifically noted the addition of a fourth Brigade to the 9th IA Mech Division.

A three Division MSR.
What is its function?
- Quick Reaction Forces (QRFs).
Who currently fills this role?
- Coalition forces. (4 Division equivalents)

This is the implimentation of a plan to reduce the coalition's presense to 1 Division, Advisors and Air by the end-2007.
Reduced to 25-50,000 personnel.
Replaced by Iraqi Army.

Now my small question:
- Why am I not seeing the reporting of this?

I have only seen mentions of extra troops to the IA in blogs with no commentary connecting the dots. Most of what I have got was from translations of PM Maliki's announcement and transcripts of MNF-I's weekly briefs.

Ric- I pulled some numbers out of my ass also. It was 200 to 1 that he is a scum bag. (actually maybe 200 to one-half, as the guy who supports him is Max (the coward) Cleland). Maybe your hemoroidal cream is causing the problem. Better stick your head up there and check. Oh, you been there, and you doing that.

Nice of lk to illustrate my point.

To repeat, and amplify: I could, and probably would, have voted for a "real" John Kerry. The one you guys picked is a self-aggrandizing scam artist. Not only will he not get my vote, the fact that you can defend and even promote him makes your intelligence and intentions highly suspect.

It's been said, and truly, that the people being scammed by John Kerry are the Democrats. It's also been said, with somewhat less truth, that you can't cheat an honest person. It's real hard for me to be sympathetic with Kerry's victims when they refuse to even consider what people with expertise in the problem domain that they don't have say.

As for "pulling numbers out of my ass", do take a moment to check the membership roster of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- and, next time, do make that sort of trivial check before you start banging keys.

Regards,
Ric

Ric - Thanks for the advice. I'm wearing my Bush Cheney T shirt right now. Since John Kerry service is so suspect, I figure every veteran may have the same service record. Who do I trust? Should I just spit on them all? Is there a way to tell the good ones (for truth) vs. the ones who got a little rose bush prick type of Purple Heart. You denigrate one, you may as well denigrate them all. what is a purple heart worth? John Kerry got vetted because of his public profile. My next door neighbor, with his purple heart - for all I know he's another Kerry. Pussy, and he never returned the barbecue that he borrowed.

Yes, Ilk, I see the [sarcasm] tags, but I'll respond seriously anyway.

If you don't feel well and don't know why, you ask a doctor. If you don't know what's wrong with your TV you ask a technician. If you don't know why your bridge is falling down you ask an engineer. In general, the person who's ignorant should ask the one who isn't.

I could go on about the specifics, but there's no reason for you to trust my opinion either, nor do the specifics matter a lot. The only publicly available source for the vetting of Kerry's military record is that of his contemporaries, "shipmates" in Navy parlance. And of over two hundred people willing to offer an opinion on John Kerry's service based on direct experience, only three did so favorably. All the rest were willing to call him vile names, or give support to those who called him vile.

There are clues, including some you may be able to understand. For instance, among respected military people the Purple Heart is sometimes referred to as "FTD" -- it stands for "forgot to duck." In other words, a person who brags a lot about having got a Purple Heart may very well have little or nothing else to brag about. You might also take a gander at the guys coming out of Walter Reed with artificial legs and arms, then volunteering to go back in -- and compare that to the character implied by having received three FTDs in four months, without ever spending a full hour in a hospital, then bragging about "heroism".

You might also ponder the notion of consistency. Ever since the movie came out, the Left have been panning "Rambo". Now suddenly a guy pops up who brags about abandoning his command to bound through the jungle with a bandolier over his shoulder and a rifle in his hand, and he's a War Hero. Something does not compute.

No. Democrats got conned into making a disastrous choice. Cut your losses, abandon the asshole, and get back to seriousness. Defending the indefensible is a game for mugs.

Regards,
Ric

Ric- What about my next door neighbor? I am serious. He's got a Purple Heart from Nam. Should I investigate, look up the service men that served with him? I need to know. I have held him in high esteem, but now I am not sure. You, get serious, Kerry I can take or leave, my next door neighbor will be out picking up his Sunday paper tomorrow morning, bending over, showing his butt crack, and that scar he says was from Nam. Should I confront him?

lk, let us know when your neighbor becomes a senator,or runs for president and reports for duty during his campaign.

Ric - neighbor is gay, doubtful he will run for office. So, what do I do? Are Purple Hearts awarded w/o regard for action involved? Is Kerry the only one who does not deserve PH? Who should I cheer at Mem. Day parade? Who should I talk to at Amer. Legion when I am getting snockered on Friday night? All politics are local, and my life is local (I am not a global issues guy). And all the veterans I know are local. Forget kerry. Should I honor vets?

How is it that so many Democratic almost-Presidents and ex-Presidents went off the deep end? Kerry, Gore, Carter... Makes Clinton look good!

How is it that so many Democratic almost-Presidents and ex-Presidents went off the deep end? Kerry, Gore, Carter... Makes Clinton look good!

Clinton was good (and I mean as a politician) - he won two elections and his popularity remains intact despite his...indiscretions. Unlike Kerry or Gore he was actually able to connect with voters on a human level.

But the key point maybe comes from a quote from Barack Obama in today's Sunday Times (UK) magazine. Yes Obama mania has even crossed the Atlantic!

"When you watch Clinton vs Gingrich, or Gore vs Bush, or Kerry vs Bush, you feel like these are fights that are taking place back in the dorm rooms in the 60s. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution...All that stuff has been playing itself out and you feel like, okay, let's not re-litigate the 60s 40 years later."

Everything about Kerry shows he's a creature of the 60s. When the democrats choose a 21st century candidate, then they'll be ready to re-take the White House.

lk sez:
Should I honor vets?

You? Nah, keep it.

Ric,

You write like I wish I could. Good explanation.

Remember one other thing. After making his Vietnam hero experience the centerpiece of his campaign, he refused to openly release his service records, even to this day. You just have to peel away one layer of the Kerry facade to see where it begins to fall apart.

All labels and little characterizations. No substance. A 21st century reality show.

rosignol wrote: By not being George W. Bush. That's a guy who has a real talent for infuriating people.

I think Democrats, especially towards the left end of the spectrum would have been equally infuriated regardless of who the President was. The evidence of that is there vilification and demonization of Dick Cheney. You are not going to find a more articulate, experienced, professional, highly qualified and mature person to run the nation than someone like Dick Cheney - and this was generally acknowledged by most people when Bush first chose him in 2000 - but the left have the posters of him with the fangs and blood and all that crap anyway.

It would make no difference who it is, if he is a Republican, the left starts demonizing him from the first day and never lets up. Can you name one Republican president since the rise of the modern left in the 1960s who hasn't been demonized?

LA Guy wrote: Even if he had delivered the joke as scripted he was still calling the President of the United States stupid.

This reminds of what someone said, that after Kerry's "explanation" of his gaffe, Bush should have issued a statement saying "I think we should all accept Senator Kerry's explanation that he did not mean to disparage the troops, but to personally insult the President of the United States."

I don't think for one second Kerry flubbed his lines. That's probably because I'm from MA, know quite a few people who know him (all democrats) and in private company they don't think he flubbed his lines either.

He knew the media would give him a pass, and if it weren't for one talk radio guy they would have.