John Kerry doing it again
Posted by Moonage on 31 Oct 2006 | Tagged as: National Politics
In 2004, President Bush’s ratings were totally in the basement. John Kerry was trashing Bush in the polls, and the media was laughing at Bush’s ineptitude. John Kerry then went to war with some former Vietnam vets that he absolutely would not get over. He hounded and hounded and hounded that one issue and basically cost the Democrats the White House. And, very possibly control of the House or Senate. It was that close. Kerry effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Fast forward to 2006, you’ve got a pretty hot race going in California for governor ( well, maybe not that hot at this point ), but it had potential. The key difference being Angelides insisting he wanted to bring the troops home. But, insisting at the same time he was doing it to support our troops. In order to bolster that image, he invites, you guessed it, John Kerry to stump for him. This is what Kerry had to say:
Yeah buddy, that’s supporting our troops all right. This not only probably is the final nail for Angelides, but it re-enforces everything the Republicans have been doing to paint the picture that Democrats are anti-military. Some of the races where the Democrats are supposed to be winning are tight. All Kerry is doing here is probably sealing the fate of a couple of those Democrats. If the Dems don’t take over the House and/or Senate in a week, I’d put the blame squarely on Kerry’s shoulders for being so stupid. And, he’s living proof that the stupid don’t automatically get sent to Iraq.
- Michelle Maulkin takes this issue to task a lot more than I feel like right now. But, it definitely merits being taken to task.
- GOPandthecity has the video of Kerry’s speech.
That was stupid, Kerry. Really stupid. You owe the troops, all of them, in Iraq or not, an apology.
November 2, 2006 UPDATE: Some people have a better sense about things than I do:
November 2, 2006, later in the day, UPDATE: Kerry has apologized for the remark after basically the entire Democrat Party fled away from him. That’s the smartest thing he’s done in three years.
18 Comments »
on 31 Oct 2006 at 1:44 pm 1.mw
said …
One week to go, congressional majorities hang in the balance, and this is all Michelle Malkin has to write about? An irrelevant 2004 presidential candidate giving a meaningless speech in support of the losing candidate in a uncompetitive gubernatorial race? And no moon, it is not a hot race. It is over, and has been over for a while. Arnold wins. Is Michelle just conceding that the Dems will take the House? What a waste of
inkelectrons. She might as well be writing about Denny Green’s opinion of the Chicago Bears, for all the relevance this has.on 31 Oct 2006 at 1:52 pm 2.mw
said …
Oh, one more thing. Regarding this comment:
“If the Dems don’t take over the House and/or Senate in a week, I’d put the blame squarely on Kerry’s shoulders for being so stupid.” - moon
This, of course is in dreict contradiction to your oft repeated “All Politics is Local” meme. So which is it? The midterm results are about: A) “All Politics is local” or B) A national referendum on John Kerry?
on 31 Oct 2006 at 4:30 pm 3.American Phoenix
said …
I agree with mw when he writes: “An irrelevant 2004 presidential candidate giving a meaningless speech in support of the losing candidate in a uncompetitive gubernatorial race?” That about sums it up. Schwarzenkennedy has got this race sewn up, but only because “Mr. Charisma” is such an obviously pathetic socialist. That Angelides asked Kerry to speak for him only proves the point. (Do we really need to be reminded of the man who addressed letters to Daniel Ortega as “Dear Commandante” and who negotiated with the VietCong in contravention of federal law?)
There is plenty of Republican dissatisfaction with the Governator, but Angelides can’t play on it because he’ll lose his voting base - the hard left. The base Kerry was addressing.
But I disagree with mw’s apparent assertion that what Kerry said is irrelevant or meaningless. It isn’t. Kerry believes as many Democrats believe and he’s just done us the great service of letting us know how he really feels.
I watched Kerry’s press conference this afternoon. To call it bloviating would be a kindness that it doesn’t deserve. Needless to say, Kerry didn’t apologize and blamed it all on the Republicans. And, given the election season, he brought up a laundry list of Democrat gripes, as if any of that had anything to do with WHAT HE SAID.
Most pathetic was Kerry bragging about his military service. Please. Spare me. I just wanted to vomit. A good soldier would take responsibility for his actions, including his use of words. Kerry just showed us, and this wasn’t even close to the first time, that he’s as irresponsible as he ever was. And Mr. Charisma just asked Mr. Irresponsibility to speak for him.
on 31 Oct 2006 at 5:56 pm 4.mw
said …
Cripes. Now, I actually had to go back and read what he said. It is 100% clear that Kerry was trashing Bush for being stupid and failing to be educated on Iraq, and as a result we are “stuck in Iraq”. For anyone to attack Kerry and claim that he was really saying that the American troops are stupid - Well that just says one hell of a lot more about the attacker than the attacked. It is just silly. I cannot believe that this is getting any play at all. If this is the best the Republicans can come up with, I have no worries that we will get divided government next week.
on 31 Oct 2006 at 10:21 pm 5.Moonage
said …
Well, MW, it is what it is he said. You have to infer a lot for it to mean an attack squarely on Bush. That’s what he meant, but that’s not what he said.
All politics is local. However, attacking individuals motivates those individuals. If Kerry were talking about purely Iraqi policy, then it’s purely a national issue and it remains just that. However, when you make it a personal slap, it then becomes local to everyone who perceived themselves insulted. I see this as being something that will make people feel insulted individually if they are in the military. This perceived local slap can have impacts on the local races. As I stated in the post, if SOME people in the military feel they have been insulted, or, his comments re-affirm the reputation that the Dems have earned over the last 40 years or so, it could effects on local races. If had just said “I think Bush is stupid and uneducated”, which is what he wanted to say, it would have had no impact anywhere at all.
on 31 Oct 2006 at 10:24 pm 6.Moonage
said …
Now, Phoenix, I’m lost. Where did I say it was still a close race? MW inferred I said it was, but I didn’t. I’m not claiming Kerry cost Angelides anything, I’m claiming Kerry’s comment could have the same impact on other races his attacking soldiers had in 2004.
on 31 Oct 2006 at 10:29 pm 7.Moonage
said …
“One week to go, congressional majorities hang in the balance, and this is all Michelle Malkin has to write about?”
She’s got a ton of stuff, MW. This is just one topic that got my curiosity that she goes into a lot more detail than most others did. I could have linked 100 blogs if I so choose. But, I felt one that covered all the bases to the story was all that was needed.
And, I don’t judge a story by how intelligent the discussion might be. I judge it on its impact. As far as the ethics of discussing it goes, how many times did you make the proclamation that the actions of a washed-up retired congressman was irrelevent and not worthy of not mentioned? Huh? Why is this any less relevent to politics than the endless charade of media coverage over Foley?
on 01 Nov 2006 at 10:42 am 8.American Phoenix
said …
Moon - You didn’t say it was a close race. You said it was a “hot”, “not that hot” race. Frankly, it hasn’t been hot from the very beginning. The most exciting race was between Westley and Angelides. Westly would have had a chance, but Angelides is too far left to get majority support in this state, even if he has the support of most of the hard left Democratic party. Angelides never really got his general election campaign off the ground. I don’t think Kerry cost Angelides anything either, since he’s a loser whether Kerry comes out or not. But Kerry’s comments surely didn’t help and Angelides picked him to speak for him - along with the entire Democrat party in 2004. We have a lot of soldiers coming from Southern California. They’re not going to take kindly to this American Alcibiades calling them stupid.
MW may believe that this was some comment about Bush, but no one else who reads what Kerry said or sees the video is going to believe it - because that’s simply not what happened. Bush wasn’t mentioned at all in that portion of Kerry’s speech and he wasn’t laughing when he said it. The American Alcibiades comments are also consistent with past comments that he has made about our military: calling them war criminals, murderers and rapists. This is just par for the course.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 2:48 pm 9.Moonage
said …
“We have a lot of soldiers coming from Southern California. They’re not going to take kindly to this American Alcibiades calling them stupid.”
That’s why I called it a “local” issue and could have an effect on some races.
As far as Angelides goes, I can only go by what I read from afar. Media implied it was going to be close way back when since Arnie was SOOOOOO unpopular in addition to everyone in California hating Bush. That’s why I just don’t really trust the media much these days.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 7:56 pm 10.mw
said …
Anyone who looks at the two sentences before the bungled punch line (which were about Bush) can see the offending sentence was about Bush. Completely obvious. I’ll stand by my previous statement. This says more about the attackers than the attacked, for anyone who pretends he was actually talking about the troops in Iraq. It is nonsense.
I was a little worried with the insane amount of coverage this is getting, but it appears the American people are smarter than the pundits. The tradesports.com futures contract on the Republicans maintaining a majority in the House dropped from a 34% probability yesterday to 32% today. Kerry is having no effect. This is a fast moving indicator. It dropped from 60% to 35% within a few days of the Foley scandal breaking.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 7:58 pm 11.American Phoenix
said …
Moon - Sorry that comment got posted twice. Computer break down on my end. Please delete.
Schwarzenegger has lost the support of many Republicans in California, but even so, he’s still far more popular - and more responsible - than Angelides.
Everyone in California doesn’t hate Bush, even if they aren’t so excited about his lack of action on some issues. Remember that California used to be a red state. It’s only been blue for less than twenty years. And the rural areas are still red. It’s the large cities that have gone blue for the most part.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 8:14 pm 12.mw
said …
This what it is like.
Remember this Bushism?:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Now Bush took a lot of crap for that statement. It was fodder for the comics and the left. It was and is all over the internet.
But everyone knows what he meant. Nobody got on their high horse and self righteously denounced Bush for “thinking about new ways to harm our country!”. That is exactly what you are doing when you claim that Kerry was calling Iraqi vets stupid or uneducated. Exactly. It is intellectually dishonest.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 8:39 pm 13.mw
said …
From Wikipedia:
The Sicilian expedition was Alcibiades’ creation, and modern scholars have argued that, had that expedition been under Alcibiades’ command instead of that of Nicias, the expedition might not have met its eventual disastrous fate.”
CC, I am trying to understand this analogy. I assume from this, that “Nicias”=Bush, and the “Sicilian expedition” is the Iraq occupation. Am I getting this right? Let me look up Nicia [time passes]…
Yeah, this looks right - also from Wikipedia:
“Nicias (470-413 BC), a soldier and statesman in ancient Athens, inherited from his father Niceratus a considerable fortune invested mainly in the silver mines of Laurium.”
I think I got it now.
on 01 Nov 2006 at 10:48 pm 14.Moonage
said …
MW, there’s a huge difference between saying something that makes little to no sense and interpreting many different ways and taking something spoken very clearly and being expected to interpret it differently than what was said. Saying he didn’t say what it is he said is being intellectually dishonest. He said what he said. Bush has taken heat, Kerry should be willing to take it as well. Instead, he’s saying everyone in the country misinterpreted him. His reaction to the flub is getting as much heat as what he said, and justifiably so. He’s an arrogant ass that can’t ever admit he’s wrong.
At least Bush is willing to admit he slaughters the English language. That’s why picking on him IMO is intellectually dishonest as well. Kerry has set a higher intellectual bar than Bush by implying repeatedly that everyone else is stupider than he is. When he does something stupid, which has happened quite often, he won’t admit it. He’ll attack everyone that says anything about. According to him, he didn’t screw up that bad, no one got his joke is the problem. Lucky him he’s got foot soldiers more than willing to beat his drum.
If I and everyone here is wrong that what he said was that bad, then why did fellow Democrats cancel all his appearances?
on 02 Nov 2006 at 2:00 am 15.mw
said …
“why did fellow Democrats cancel all his appearances?” - moon
Pretty simple moon, and I’m sure you know the answer as well as I. Six days to the election. Rove wants Kerry on the front page, and will try to keep him there (with a little help from his friends of course). It is a Realpolitik decision. Either the Dems throw Kerry under the bus, or throw the majority in the House under the bus.
Buh-bye Johnny. We hardly knew ye.
on 02 Nov 2006 at 8:38 am 16.Moonage
said …
If the Democrats are making the decision to throw Kerry under the bus, what does Karl Rove have to do with anything? Kerry created this mess, the Democrat candidates are responding accordingly. Not everything is a Republican conspiracy.
And, if Kerry’s comment was as innocent as you imply, why would the Democrats throw him under a bus?
The very simple answer is they are thinking the same thing I am, he made a stupid comment whether intentional or not, and his arrogance won’t allow him to do the right thing and show contrition. The last thing any candidate wants to be perceived as is condoning Kerry’s stupidity and arrogance by standing with him on the campaign trail.
That’s why he’s not making any more appearances, Karl Rove has nothing to do with it. And, I’m quite certain all those Democrat candidates that cancelled hanging out with Kerry would be quite offended to think SOME people think they answer to Karl Rove.
on 02 Nov 2006 at 4:21 pm 17.American Phoenix
said …
mw - No, you don’t get it. Alcibiades was someone who changed allegiances at the drop of a hat. He fought for Athens, Sparta and Persia. So let me spell it out for you: T R A I T O R. Kerry’s sticks his finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing before voting for something before he votes against it. His only interest is his own retention of political power, no matter what it costs this country or the oppressed in other countries (El Salvador, Vietnam, and Nicaragua to name a few).
Kerry gives us ample evidence that he thinks no one is as smart as he is and no matter what stupid thing he does or says, it’s always someone else’s fault. Like Kerry, all you can do his blame his idiotic comments on someone else - Karl Rove. That’s just pathological.
on 02 Nov 2006 at 6:24 pm 18.The Right Nation said …
Dear Jon Carry…
Blogswarm: My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (2), Stop The ACLU, Blue Star Chronicles, The Anchoress (2), Patterico?s Pontifications, A Blog For All, The Political Pit Bull, 7.62mm Justice, Sticky Notes, Politechnical, Snapped Shot, RightWinged, Frenchma…