Kerry insults the troops

[Jim Franklin]

Even if JK was trying to make a point about his opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq. #1 he voted for the action in the first place. #2 He picked a most Fortuitous time for the GOP to remind the electorate that he and his cronies are poor bets to lead during time of war. #3 Most all of the troops are thanking God that he is not now their Commander in Chief and #4 He did not study hard enough and get smart enough to keep himself out of Vietnam. IMHO a glaring example of anti-Americanism Kerry delivers the GOP's "October surprise."



Dave and other NazNetters who servedour country well in Vietnam, I do not recall seeing any of you post about your feelings toward John Kerry for his testimony before Congress in the 70s.

[Glenn Harris]

that unfortunately, many of the people who are defending his actions and screaming that it is nothing but a Republican effort to confuse the issues would be screaming for his head on a stick if he were a Republican and likewise, many of the people who are screaming for his head on a stick would be jumping through hoops to explain, defend or justify his remarks if he were a Republican.

While I don't like what he said, I have my own personal opinion of the why he said them but my opinion isn't going to change anything. I've figured that I'll make my opinion known in the only place that really matters. Tuesday in the ballot box where I have just as much power as George Bush, John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh, George Soros or anyone else. The rest is just noise.

[William Hunter]

Do we really expect anything different from Kerry and his ilk? His comment should make all us stop and think about who probably has a more effective track record in defending our national security.

I am surprised that those with a more liberal bent have not posted and taken issue with your statement--but then it is hard to defend Kerry's statement, no matter what a person's political bent.

[Bruce Carriker]

What John Kerry said was just amazingly stupid and just plain wrong. I am in near full accord with his position on the war, but to insult the servicemen and -women who are serving is beneath contempt. This simply supports my sister's view of politics and why she doesn't vote:

"Every time I think I can vote Republican, they do something to prove that they're the greedy party. But every time I think I can vote Democratic, they do something to prove that they're the stupid party."

The Republicans have done everything possible to hand this mid-term election to the Democrats, and it appears the Democrats are bound and determined to fall on their faces, regardless.

[Bruce Carriker]

...many of the people who are defending his actions and screaming that it is nothing but a Republican effort to confuse the issues would be screaming for his head on a stick if he were a Republican and likewise, many of the people who are screaming for his head on a stick would be jumping through hoops to explain, defend or justify his remarks if he were a Republican.

Bingo! Thanks, Glenn.

[Billy Cox]

Even if JK was trying to make a point about his opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq. #1 he voted for the action in the first place. #2 He picked a most Fortuitous time for the GOP to remind the electorate that he and his cronies are poor bets to lead during time of war. #3 Most all of the troops are thanking God that he is not now their Commander in Chief and #4 He did not study hard enough and get smart enough to keep himself out of Vietnam. IMHO a glaring example of anti-Americanism Kerry delivers the GOP's "October surprise."



Dave and other NazNetters who servedour country well in Vietnam, I do not recall seeing any of you post about your feelings toward John Kerry for his testimony before Congress in the 70s.


Kerry and other Democrats campaigned on 'anyone but Bush' in 2004, and Republicans held the White House and gained additional seats in both houses of Congress.

In 2006, Bush isn't even on the ballot, and the Democrats are still campaigning on 'anyone but Bush.' ...and they are the party that frequently trumpets how dumb Bush is.

[Glenn Harris]

*

[Barbara Moulton]

Cute picture :-)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I just saw this photo elsewhere on the web and came here to post it to this thread only to find that Glenn beat me to it.

No matter what one's political view that is a LOL photo.

[Bruce Carriker]

In 2006, Bush isn't even on the ballot, and the Democrats are still campaigning on 'anyone but Bush.' ...and they are the party that frequently trumpets how dumb Bush is.

He's the focal point of discontent with the Republican majority. For those who oppose his policies, they realize that without the House or the Senate, his agenda can be stopped.

Frankly, I wish there was a little more focus in our elections on the positions of party leaders and partisan politics. It only shows our ignorance when we vote for a presidential candidate of one party and a House or Senate candidate of another party (and yes, I've done it, too...that's why I said OUR). If we're going to vote for a particular candidate for president...regardless of party...why would we not vote a full-slate for that candidate's party, so that he/she has people of the same party to work with after the election?

[Barbara Moulton]

I heard that John Kerry is now claiming that he mispoke a joke?

He meant to say something like "...get us stuck in Iraq....." but instead said, "...get stuck in Iraq."

Anyone think that possible?

[Glenn Harris]

I heard that John Kerry is now claiming that he mispoke a joke?

He meant to say something like "...get us stuck in Iraq....." but instead said, "...get stuck in Iraq."

Anyone think that possible?

It's highly possible. Who can say without seeing the original transcript from the speech but historically Kerry doesn't do much off the cuff, he isn't a joke type person and he doesn't make those kind of mistakes. Having said that, I really think that his intent is secondary and quite honestly, if it had been any other politician, the veteran's in particular, but also the general public would have been a little quicker to let it go, accept an explanation and not make such a big deal out of it but Kerry's track record on his relationship with the military is dismal and his past faux paux's where he has shown incredible distain for the troops and the services is never very far below the surface. Most people (and I include myself in this) would believe that at worst he meant it when he said it (to a group he probably assumed was safe in California) and only regrets the fallout from it or at best it was a freudian slip and while he didn't mean to say what he said he ended up saying what he meant.

The litmus test for me are how the politicians react to it. The Republicans are predictably going to try to use it as an illustration of the Democrat's overall feeling about the Military and try to pin every candidate running onto Kerry's shirt-tail. That's politics. The Democrats have the ball in their court and it seems they are acting responsibily. Every candidate that is concerned about their future immediately distanced themselves from him and denounced what he said and even the party loyalists and those not running, while slow to respond, did realize the potential catastrophic fallout and came out in denunciation of the remark. (I'll mention that the first to jump ship were the midwestern candidates who KNEW how their constituents felt about it) How much damage it did to this election will only be revealed tuesday but I think it's pretty safe to say that any aspirations that Kerry had for a national position are gone now and he'll have to resign himself to staying within the borders of the Peoples Republic of Taxichusetts.

(I'll add that I think that the damage to Kerry's national ambitions is a result of timing, not verbage) He has made outrageous remarks before concerning the troops but they have always been in elections in which he was running and many people who want to believe the best took them as pandering for votes, but this time he wasn't running and to say something that outrageous, even if it wasn't planned, is indefensible in the overall scheme.

[BobHunt]

strange that he now says it was a joke, if you watch the footage there was not one person who grinned when he said it. They must have not got it!

[Hans Deventer]

strange that he now says it was a joke, if you watch the footage there was not one person who grinned when he said it. They must have not got it!

Bob, let's face it, Kerry is not quite known for his humour, is he? :basic05

[Bruce Carriker]

In 2006, Bush isn't even on the ballot, and the Democrats are still campaigning on 'anyone but Bush.' ...

Interesting that you would make this comment about Bush in a thread about John Kerry. :basic01

Last time I checked, he wasn't on the ballot, either.

[Rich Hudson]

Years from now John Kerry will likely be the answer to a question in Trivial Pursuit, George W will have become synonymous with Herbert Hoover, our grandchildren will be paying the bills left over from our present misadventure and...

...the religious right will still be...well...religious.

[Cindi Hammons]

If we're going to vote for a particular candidate for president...regardless of party...why would we not vote a full-slate for that candidate's party, so that he/she has people of the same party to work with after the election?

Bruce,

Policial scientists believe that voters do this as their own way of balancing the "checks and balances." They may feel that Pres. So-and-So would do a good job, but they don't want to give him the full set of the keys to the kingdom. By having an opposition Congress, it places checks on the Executive Branch.

I agree that it creates gridlock and agrivation, however, the reasoning is interesting.

[Billy Cox]

(I'll add that I think that the damage to Kerry's national ambitions is a result of timing, not verbage) He has made outrageous remarks before concerning the troops but they have always been in elections in which he was running and many people who want to believe the best took them as pandering for votes, but this time he wasn't running and to say something that outrageous, even if it wasn't planned, is indefensible in the overall scheme.

I think what he said was important. There is an undercurrent in the Democratic party saying that poor people are just cannon fodder for Mr. Bush's mideast crusade.

Recent history suggests that a successful presidential candidate is one who had the ingenuity to avoid going to Vietnam.

I don't think this incident represents the end of Kerry's prospects of being elected president. Those prospects dried up in 2004. The Democrats don't give their failed presidential candidates a second chance to mess up.

[Bruce Carriker]

Bruce,

Policial scientists believe that voters do this as their own way of balancing the "checks and balances." They may feel that Pres. So-and-So would do a good job, but they don't want to give him the full set of the keys to the kingdom. By having an opposition Congress, it places checks on the Executive Branch.

I agree that it creates gridlock and agrivation, however, the reasoning is interesting.

As a student of political science (with a degree to prove it, no less) I understand WHY the voters do what they do. All I'm saying is that if they want a president who will actually DO what he promises during the campaign, then the voters need to get smarter about how the process works in this country. Understanding WHY its done doesn't make it logical.

You call the reasoning "interesting". I prefer perverse. "Hey, let's all vote for Party A's presidential candidate, because we really like his platform (or his hair or his smile). But lets all be sure to elect Party B's folks to Congress, so our president won't be able to enact any of that platform we like so much.":rolleyes: :o

[Cindi Hammons]

Yes, you are correct that it does not make sense. It's like the electorate that complains bitterly about Congress, yet votes the same people in year after year. What they say and what they do are two different things.

[Bruce Carriker]

Yes, you are correct that it does not make sense. It's like the electorate that complains bitterly about Congress, yet votes the same people in year after year. What they say and what they do are two different things.

That's because it's YOUR Congressman that YOU keep electing is the one not doing their job. MY Congressman, who I'M going to vote to re-elect is a great guy!!

Just using you and me as an example, but that's the thinking among most voters. They HATE Congress overall and think they're doing a lousy job. But it's the other 434 who are doing the lousy job. They love their Congressman/-woman.