NationStates Jolt Archive

After a fairly prolonged absence (gotta pay the bills, you know,) I am back. However, tonight, in the interest of taking it slow, I have one article to link to, and it isn't even from the Right side of the aisle. James Ridgway, writing on the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php), makes a plea to the Democratic party. Let's hope he is ignored! :lol:

Also, from The Best of the Web (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best), the following:
Bring 'Em On! No, Call 'Em Off!

"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"--John Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0201a.htmll), quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 1

"Call off the Republican attack dogs."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_cheney_6), responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, quoted by the Associated Press, April 26


And let me tell you, it's good to be back, just in time to watch the Kerry implosion. :D

Just for some perspective on the Opinion Journal piece--the first quote was from John Kerry, the presumptive nominee and the person who has been defending his military record quite ably from some shameless attackers in the Republican party, while the second quote was from Terry McAuliffe, who was responding to a speech made by Dick Cheney that was so partisan that the President of the University was not only embarassed, but felt he had to offer equal time to Kerry some time in the future. Only the people at Opinion Journal would see those two quotes as somehow being in conflict with each other.

Just for some perspective on the Opinion Journal piece--the first quote was from John Kerry, the presumptive nominee and the person who has been defending his military record quite ably from some shameless attackers in the Republican party, while the second quote was from Terry McAuliffe, who was responding to a speech made by Dick Cheney that was so partisan that the President of the University was not only embarassed, but felt he had to offer equal time to Kerry some time in the future. Only the people at Opinion Journal would see those two quotes as somehow being in conflict with each other.

As for John Kerry defending his military record "ably", I think you left part of the word out...I am sure you meant "lamentably." Don't tell me you watched his Good Morning America interview without cringing. Hell, I watched it, and I felt bad for the guy...he is faltering badly. And I am sure you haven't quite been following the controversy (from the same GMA bit) about his latest flipping regarding "his" medals flying over the White House fence (or is it "his" ribbons...by the way, the ribbons represent the medals.) Let's not even go into his latest "I-coulda-sworn-the-mike-was-off" moment (also during the GMA interview.)

As for the McAwful comment, it IS relevant, AND in conflict with Kerry's comment. HIS presumptive (now there's a word that aptly describes Jean Francois) nominee clearly said "bring it on." When the GOP brings it on (just like he asked for,) suddenly the heat is too much and McAwful has to beg for mercy? I says, the attack from the Right is working, and Jean Francois better be ready...it's going to be a long 6 months for him.

I meant exactly what I typed--ably--and here's why. Because if you put the service records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side, no matter how you squint your eyes, no matter what kind of partisan lenses you gaze through, no matter how much of the right-wing Kool-Aid you swill down in hopes of making something beneficial appear, Bush still loses badly. Why? Because Kerry was in Vietnam, coming under fire while Bush was in Texas and Alabama playing volleyball in a swimming pool. That's a difference everyone can see, and the longer the right tries to make this an issue, the more it's going to hurt them in the long run.

And by the way, for a first hand account of Kerry's throwing of his war decorations, look at Tom Oliphant's column (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/27/i_watched_kerry_throw_his_war_decorations/) in today's Boston Globe. Unlike the bloviations that are emanating from the right wingers these days, Oliphant was there personally and saw what Kerry did and heard what he said.

And as to McAuliffe's comment (and by the way, I criticize my political opponents, but I don't call them names--that's childish), the point you so obviously failed to notice is that Kerry made the original statement saying "Bring it on." Far as I know, he hasn't changed that stance. McAuliffe 1) didn't say "bring it on" and 2) isn't asking for mercy. He's asking for a higher level of discourse. But if the level your side is choosing is the "McAwful" and "John Francois Kerry" level, I guess an adult discussion is a bit much to ask.

I meant exactly what I typed--ably--and here's why. Because if you put the service records of John Kerry and George W. Bush side by side, no matter how you squint your eyes, no matter what kind of partisan lenses you gaze through, no matter how much of the right-wing Kool-Aid you swill down in hopes of making something beneficial appear, Bush still loses badly. Why? Because Kerry was in Vietnam, coming under fire while Bush was in Texas and Alabama playing volleyball in a swimming pool. That's a difference everyone can see, and the longer the right tries to make this an issue, the more it's going to hurt them in the long run.

And by the way, for a first hand account of Kerry's throwing of his war decorations, look at Tom Oliphant's column (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/27/i_watched_kerry_throw_his_war_decorations/) in today's Boston Globe. Unlike the bloviations that are emanating from the right wingers these days, Oliphant was there personally and saw what Kerry did and heard what he said.

And as to McAuliffe's comment (and by the way, I criticize my political opponents, but I don't call them names--that's childish), the point you so obviously failed to notice is that Kerry made the original statement saying "Bring it on." Far as I know, he hasn't changed that stance. McAuliffe 1) didn't say "bring it on" and 2) isn't asking for mercy. He's asking for a higher level of discourse. But if the level your side is choosing is the "McAwful" and "John Francois Kerry" level, I guess an adult discussion is a bit much to ask.

When Kerry stoops down to beating on a very dead horse (Bush's FULL military record has been made FULLY public...oh, say a month now? Maybe even longer, but I stopped paying attention to that non-controversy. By the way, why isn't Kerry's FULL military record made public? Selected portions of the record, on a website, doesn't quite measure up to being "public,") you know he is desperate to move the focus away from him. If that is an "able" defense of his record in your eyes, well, I guess the Kool-Aid from the Left is indeed spiked with ethylene glycol (you know, what the French were adding to their wines...) To think, Kerry's "able" defense started with his own Commanding Officer from Vietnam bringing into question the circumstances of Kerry's "wounds" that won him his first Purple Heart (a Purple Heart for a fingernail-type shrapnel scratch?!)

Tom Oliphant should talk to Kerry, and give him pointers or memory joggers...of course, he writes in the Boston Globe, so who is to say he isn't doing exactly that, or at least feeding him lines? After all, the Kerry of today is constantly refuting what the Kerry of 1971 did and said (and contradicting the official record, by the way.)

As for the name-calling, you personally may not engage in it, and I commend you for it. But, name-calling has been the calling card of the Left ever since before the 2000 election, and what's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander...and you have to admit, Kerry does look like a Frenchie, and McAuliffe has been...well, Awful for the Democratic Party. Sometimes I wonder if that was the Bill and Hillary plan all along...